Probing the Electronic Communication of the Isocyanide Bridge Through the Luminescence Properties of the d<sup>9</sup>−d<sup>9</sup> [ClPt(μ-dppm)<sub>2</sub>Pt(C≡N—PCP)]<sup>+</sup> and A-Frame [ClPd(μ-dppm)<sub>2</sub>(μ-C═N—PCP)PdCl] Complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The homodinuclear d9-d9 ClM(mu-dppm)2MCl2 complexes, 1 (M ) Pt) and 2 (M ) Pd) react with the conjugated and luminescent PCP-NC ligand (3, PCP ) [2.2]paracyclophane) to provide the corresponding d9-d9 terminal[ClPt(mu-dppm)2Pt(CNsPCP)]Cl (4) and d8-d8 A-frame [ClPd(mu-dppm)2(mu-CdNsPCP)PdCl] (5) isocyanide complexes, respectively. These two bimetallic complexes were characterized by IR, 1H, and 31P{1H} NMR and bychemical analysis. IR data (nu(CN) bridging vs terminal) reveal a terminal isocyanide bonding mode for 4 (2147cm(-1)) and an A-frame structure for 5 (1616 cm(-1)). The optical and emission properties of the free isocyanide 3as well as those of the homodinuclear complexes 4 and 5 were studied by UV-visible and luminescence spectroscopy and by photophysical measurements. The unexpected presence of simultaneous intraligand pipi* fluorescence and phosphorescence attributable to the organic PCP-NC ligand, as well as luminescence from the inorganic M2-bonded Pt2(mu-dppm)2 center arising from a lower energy excited LMCT state (ligand-to-metal-charge-transfer) for4 at 77 K, indicates a weak conjugation between the two chromophores and an absence of efficient singlet andtriplet energy transfers. For 5, only the fluorescence and phosphorescence bands of the PCP-NC ligand are observed [since the A-frame XPd(mu-dppm)2(mu-L)PdX (L ) isocyanide, X ) halide) is not luminescent], stressing that the NtC bridge exhibits modest electronic communication properties.
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".