To Bend or Not To Bend: Experimental and Computational Studies of Structural Preference in Ln(Tp<sup>iPr</sup><sub>2</sub>)<sub>2</sub> (Ln = Sm, Tm)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The synthesis and characterization of Ln(Tp(iPr2))2 (Ln = Sm, 3Sm; Tm, 3Tm) are reported. While the simple (1)H NMR spectra of the compounds indicate a symmetrical solution structure, with equivalent pyrazolyl groups, the solid-state structure revealed an unexpected, "bent sandwich-like" geometry. By contrast, the structure of the less sterically congested Tm(Tp(Me2,4Et))2 (4) adopts the expected symmetrical structure with a linear B-Tm-B arrangement. Computational studies to investigate the origin of the unexpected bent structure of the former compounds indicate that steric repulsion between the isopropyl groups forces the Tp ligands apart and permits the development of unusual interligand C-H···N hydrogen-bonding interactions that help stabilize the structure. These results find support in the similar geometry of the Tm(III) analogue [Tm(Tp(iPr2))2]I, 3Tm(+), and confirm that the low symmetry is not the result of a metal-ligand interaction. The relevance of these results to the general question of the coordination geometry of MX2 and M(C5R5)2 (M = heavy alkaline earth and Ln(II), X = halide, and C5R5 = bulky persubstituted cyclopentadienyl) complexes and the importance of secondary H-bonding and nonbonding interactions on the structure are highlighted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".