Lattice and Valence Electronic Structures of Crystalline Octahedral Molybdenum Halide Clusters-Based Compounds, Cs<sub>2</sub>[Mo<sub>6</sub>X<sub>14</sub>] (X = Cl, Br, I), Studied by Density Functional Theory Calculations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The electronic and crystal structures of Cs 2 [Mo 6 X 14 ] (X = Cl, Br, I) cluster-based compounds were investigated by density functional theory (DFT) simulations and experimental methods such as powder X-ray diffraction, ultraviolet–visible spectroscopy, and X-ray photoemission spectroscopy (XPS). The experimentally determined lattice parameters were in good agreement with theoretically optimized ones, indicating the usefulness of DFT calculations for the structural investigation of these clusters. The calculated band gaps of these compounds reproduced those experimentally determined by UV–vis reflectance within an error of a few tenths of an eV. Core-level XPS and effective charge analyses indicated bonding states of the halogens changed according to their sites. The XPS valence spectra were fairly well reproduced by simulations based on the projected electron density of states weighted with cross sections of Al K α, suggesting that DFT calculations can predict the electronic properties of metal-cluster-based crystals with good accuracy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".