Analysis of the Bonding between Two M(μ-NAr<sup>#</sup>) Monomers in the Dimeric Metal(II) Imido Complexes {M(μ-NAr<sup>#</sup>)}<sub>2</sub> [M = Si, Ge, Sn, Pb; Ar<sup>#</sup> = C<sub>6</sub>H<sub>3</sub>-2,6-(C<sub>6</sub>H<sub>2</sub>-2,4,6-R<sub>3</sub>)<sub>2</sub>]. The Stabilizing Role Played by R = Me and iPr
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nature of the bonding between the two M(μ-NAr(#)) imido monomers [M = Si, Ge, Sn, Pb; Ar(#) = C6H3-2,6-(C6H2-2,4,6-R3)2; R = Me, iPr] in the {M(μ-NAr(#))}2 dimer is investigated with the help of a newly developed energy and density decomposition scheme as well as molecular dynamics. The approach combines the extended transition state energy decomposition method with the natural orbitals for chemical valence density decomposition scheme within the same theoretical framework. The dimers are kept together by two σ bonds and two π bonds. The σ bonding has two major contributions. The first is a dative transfer of charge from nitrogen to M. It amounts to -188 kcal/mol for {Si(μ-NAr(#))}2, -152 kcal/mol for {Ge(μ-NAr(#))}2 with -105 kcal/mol for {Sn(μ-NAr(#))}2, and -79 kcal/mol for {Pb(μ-NAr(#))}2. The second is a charge buildup within the ring made up of the two dimers. It amounts to -82 kcal/mol for M = Si with -61 kcal/mol for M = Ge and ∼-50 kcal/mol for M = Sn and Pb. We finally have π bonding with a donation of charge from M to nitrogen. It has a modest contribution of ∼-30 kcal/mol. The presence of isopropyl (iPr) groups is further shown to stabilize{M(μ-NAr(#))}2 [M = Si, Ge, Sn, Pb; Ar(#) = C6H3-2,6-(C6H2-2,4,6-iPr3)2] compared to the methylated derivatives (R = Me) through attractive van der Waals dispersion interactions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".