Determining the Magnitude and Direction of Photoinduced Ligand Field Switching in Photochromic Metal–Organic Complexes: Molybdenum–Tetracarbonyl Spirooxazine Complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to optically switch or tune the intrinsic properties of transition metals (e.g., redox potentials, emission/absorption energies, and spin states) with photochromic metal-ligand complexes is an important strategy for developing "smart" materials. We have described a methodology for using metal-carbonyl complexes as spectroscopic probes of ligand field changes associated with light-induced isomerization of photochromic ligands. Changes in ligand field between the ring-closed spirooxazine (SO) and ring-opened photomerocyanine (PMC) forms of photochromic azahomoadamantyl and indolyl phenanthroline-spirooxazine ligands are demonstrated through FT-IR, (13)C NMR, and computational studies of their molybdenum-tetracarbonyl complexes. The frontier molecular orbitals (MOs) of the SO and PMC forms differ considerably in both electron density distributions and energies. Of the multiple π* MOs in the SO and PMC forms of the ligands, the LUMO+1, a pseudo-b(1)-symmetry phenanthroline-based MO, mixes primarily with the Mo(CO)(4) fragment and provides the major pathway for Mo(d)→phen(π*) backbonding. The LUMO+1 is found to be 0.2-0.3 eV lower in energy in the SO form relative to the PMC form, suggesting that the SO form is a better π-acceptor. Light-induced isomerization of the photochromic ligands was therefore found to lead to changes in the energies of their frontier MOs, which in turn leads to changes in π-acceptor ability and ligand field strength. Ligand field changes associated with photoisomerizable ligands allow tuning of excited-state and ground-state energies that dictate energy/electron transfer, optical/electrical properties, and spin states of a metal center upon photoisomerization, positioning photochromic ligand-metal complexes as promising targets for smart materials.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".