Bamboo-like Chained Cavities and Other Halogen-Bonded Complexes from Tetrahaloethynyl Cavitands with Simple Ditopic Halogen Bond Acceptors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Halogen bonding provides a useful complement to hydrogen bonding and metal-coordination as a tool for organizing supramolecular systems. Resorcinarenes, tetrameric bowl-shaped cavitands, have been previously shown to function as efficient scaffolds for generating dimeric capsules in both solution and solid-phase, and complicated one-, two-, and three-dimensional frameworks in the solid phase. Tetrahaloethynyl resorcinarenes (bromide and iodide) position the halogen atoms in a very promising “crown-like” orientation for acting as organizing halogen-bond donors to help build capsules and higher-order networks. Symmetric divalent halogen bond acceptors including bipyridines, 1,4-dioxane, and 1,4-diazabicyclo[2.2.2]octane are very promising halogen bond accepting partners for creating these systems. This report describes the complex structures arising from combining these various systems including self-included dimers, herringbone-packed architectures enclosing medium (186 Å 3 ) cavities, and a very intriguing bamboo-like one-dimensional rod with large (683 Å 3 ) cavities between adjacent dimeric units. These various structures, all organized through host–host, host–acceptor, and host–solvent interactions highlight the emergent complexity of these types of complexes. As halogen bonds are weaker than hydrogen-bonds, the resulting architectures are harder to predict, and these results provide additional insight into the parameters requiring consideration when designing crystalline supramolecular systems using halogen-bonds as the core organizing principle.
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".