Emissive Heterobimetallic Copper(I) Dicyanoaurate‐Based Coordination Polymers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Five new CuI/[Au(CN)2]−‐based coordination polymer materials—Cu(py)2[Au(CN)2] (1), Cu(PPh3)(MeCN)[Au(CN)2]⋅MeCN (2 a), Cu(PPh3)(MeCN)[Au(CN)2] (2 b), Cu3(THT)4[Au(CN)2]3 (3 a) and Cu(THT)[Au(CN)2] (3 b)—were prepared and characterized in terms of their structural and photoluminescence properties, and thermal stability (py=pyridine, THT=tetrahydrothiophene). While 1 and 2 a/2 b adopted one‐dimensional zig‐zag chain structures with no Au⋅⋅⋅Au (aurophilic) bonding, 3 a and 3 b exhibited much more complex three‐dimensional frameworks featuring numerous aurophilic interactions; bridging THT units formed either eight‐membered Cu4S4 rings (3 a) or helical (Cu/S)n chains (3 b). When these materials are excited using a broad‐band UV source (365 nm), they each emit light of a distinct colour (except for 2 a): light green for 1, pale blue for 2 b, deep blue for 3 a, and violet for 3 b (λmax=506 nm (1), 464 nm (2 b), 457 nm (3 a) and 404 nm (3 b)). The emission band in 1, 2 b and 3 b was assigned to CuI/ligand/CN−‐based MLCT transitions, while the emission band of 3 a appears to be influenced by the presence of the aurophilic interactions in the structure. Materials 1 and 3 a lose their bound pyridine and THT, respectively, at 110 and 95 °C, respectively, indicating their potential utility as sensory 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 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) | 0.001 | 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".