MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2727207649 · doi:10.1139/cjc-2017-0277

Octahedral Co(III) salen complexes: the role of peripheral ligand electronics on axial ligand release upon reduction

2017· article· en· W2727207649 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Chen Zhang, Mathew Sutherland, Khrystyna Herasymchuk, Ryan M. Clarke, J. R. Thompson, Linus Chiang, Charles J. Walsby, Tim Storr

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMetal complexes synthesis and properties
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryLigand (biochemistry)OctahedronRedoxSchiff baseImidazoleMedicinal chemistryQuenching (fluorescence)Ring (chemistry)CrystallographyStereochemistryFluorescenceInorganic chemistryCrystal structureOrganic chemistryReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A series of octahedral Co III salen complexes (where salen represents a N 2 O 2 bis-Schiff-base bis-phenolate framework) were prepared with axial imidazole ligating groups. When using 1-methylimidazole (1-MeIm) axial ligands, the Co III /Co II reduction potential could be altered by 220 mV via variation of the electron-donating ability of the para-ring substituents (R = H (1), OMe (2), tBu (3), Br (4), NO 2 (5), and CF 3 (6)). In addition, the irreversibility of the reduction process suggested substantial geometrical changes and axial ligand exchange upon reduction to the more labile Co II oxidation state. Installing an imidazole-coumarin conjugate as the axial ligands resulted in fluorescence quenching when bound to the Co III centre (R = H (7), OMe (8), and CF 3 (9)). The redox properties and fluorescence increase upon ligand release for 7–9 were studied under reducing conditions and in the presence of excess competing ligand (1-MeIm). It was determined that the Lewis acidity of the Co III centre was the dominant factor in controlling axial ligand exchange for this series of complexes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicMetal complexes synthesis and propertiesFrench-language works237,207