<sup>1</sup>H NMR, Electron Paramagnetic Resonance, and Density Functional Theory Study of Dinuclear Pentaammineruthenium Dicyanamidobenzene Complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paramagnetic (1)H NMR and electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopies and density functional theory (DFT) spin density calculations were selectively performed on the [{(NH(3))(5)Ru}(2)(μ-L)](3+, 4+, 5+) complexes, where L is 2,3,5,6-tetrachloro-, 2,5-dichloro-, 2,5-dimethyl-, and unsubstituted 1,4-dicyanamidobenzene dianion, to characterize the electronic structure of these complexes. EPR spectra of the [{(NH(3))(5)Ru}(2)(μ-L)](3+) complexes in N,N'-dimethylformamide at 4 K showed a ruthenium axial signal, and thus the complexes are [Ru(II),L(2-), Ru(III)] mixed-valence systems. DFT spin density calculations of [{(NH(3))(5)Ru}(2)(μ-L)](3+) where L = 1,4-dicyanamidobenzene dianion gave mostly bridging-ligand centered spin distribution for both vacuum and implicit solvent calculations, in poor agreement with EPR, but more realistic results were obtained when explicit electrostatic interactions between solute and solvent were included in modeling. For the [{(NH(3))(5)Ru}(2)(μ-L)](4+) complexes, EPR spectroscopy showed no signal down to 4 K. Nevertheless, solvent-dependent (1)H NMR data and analysis support a [Ru(III),L(2-), Ru(III)] state. Hyperfine coupling constants (A(c)/h) of trans- and cis-ammine and phenyl hydrogens were determined to be 17.2, 3.8, and -1.5 MHz respectively. EPR studies of the [{(NH(3))(5)Ru}(2)(μ-L)](5+) complexes showed a metal-radical axial signal and based on previously published (1)H NMR data, a [Ru(IV),L(2-), Ru(III)] state is favored over a [Ru(III),L(-), Ru(III)] state.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.006 | 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".