Rational Syntheses and Serendipity: Complexes [LSnPtCl<sub>2</sub>(SMe<sub>2</sub>)]<sub>2</sub>, [{LSnPtCl(SMe<sub>2</sub>)}<sub>2</sub>SnCl<sub>2</sub>], [(LSn)<sub>3</sub>(PtCl<sub>2</sub>)(PtClSnCl){LSn(Cl)OH}], and [O(SnCl)<sub>2</sub>(SnL)<sub>2</sub>] with L=MeN(CH<sub>2</sub>CMe<sub>2</sub>O)<sub>2</sub>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Syntheses and molecular structures of the dimeric tin–platinum complex [LSnPtCl 2 (SMe 2 )] 2 ( 2 ), the tin–platinum clusters [{LSnPtCl(SMe 2 )} 2 SnCl 2 )] ( 3 ) and [(LSn) 3 (PtCl 2 )(PtClSnCl)(LSnOHCl)] ( 6 ) (L=MeN(CH 2 CMe 2 O − ) 2 ), and of the unprecedented tin(II) aminoalkoxide–tin oxide chloride complex [O(SnCl) 2 ⋅ (SnL) 2 ] ( 5 ) are reported. The compounds were characterized by NMR spectroscopy ( 1 H, 13 C, 119 Sn, 195 Pt), 119 Sn Mössbauer spectroscopy ( 1 – 3 , 6 ), electrospray ionization mass spectrometry, elemental analyses, and single‐crystal X‐ray diffraction analyses ( 2⋅ CH 2 Cl 2 , 3⋅ 2 C 4 H 8 O, 5 , 6⋅ 3CH 2 Cl 2 ). The tin(II) aminoalkoxide [MeN(CH 2 CMe 2 O) 2 Sn] 2 ( 1 ) behaves like a neutral ligand, inserts into a Pt−Cl bond, or is involved in rearrangement reactions with the different behavior occurring even within one compound ( 3 , 6 ). DFT calculations show that the tin–platinum compounds behave like electronic chameleons.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.028 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.007 |
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 it