Bond-length distributions for ions bonded to oxygen: results for the non-metals and discussion of lone-pair stereoactivity and the polymerization of PO <sub>4</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bond-length distributions are examined for three configurations of the H + ion, 16 configurations of the group 14–16 non-metal ions and seven configurations of the group 17 ions bonded to oxygen, for 223 coordination polyhedra and 452 bond distances for the H + ion, 5957 coordination polyhedra and 22 784 bond distances for the group 14–16 non-metal ions, and 248 coordination polyhedra and 1394 bond distances for the group 17 non-metal ions. H...O and O—H + H...O distances correlate with O...O distance ( R 2 = 0.94 and 0.96): H...O = 1.273 × O...O – 1.717 Å; O—H + H...O = 1.068 × O...O – 0.170 Å. These equations may be used to locate the hydrogen atom more accurately in a structure refined by X-ray diffraction. For non-metal elements that occur with lone-pair electrons, the most observed state between the n versus n +2 oxidation state is that of highest oxidation state for period 3 cations, and lowest oxidation state for period 4 and 5 cations when bonded to O 2− . Observed O— X —O bond angles indicate that the period 3 non-metal ions P 3+ , S 4+ , Cl 3+ and Cl 5+ are lone-pair seteroactive when bonded to O 2− , even though they do not form secondary bonds. There is no strong correlation between the degree of lone-pair stereoactivity and coordination number when including secondary bonds. There is no correlation between lone-pair stereoactivity and bond-valence sum at the central cation. In synthetic compounds, PO 4 polymerizes via one or two bridging oxygen atoms, but not by three. Partitioning our PO 4 dataset shows that multi-modality in the distribution of bond lengths is caused by the different bond-valence constraints that arise for O br = 0, 1 and 2. For strongly bonded cations, i.e. oxyanions, the most probable cause of mean bond length variation is the effect of structure type, i.e. stress induced by the inability of a structure to follow its a priori bond lengths. For ions with stereoactive lone-pair electrons, the most probable cause of variation is bond-length distortion.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".