Supramolecular Organoplatinum(IV) Chemistry: Dimers and Polymers Formed by Intermolecular Hydrogen Bonding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The reaction of [PtMe2(6-dppd)], 1, where 6-dppd is a 1,4-bis(2-pyridyl)pyridazine derivative, with bromoalkanes BrCH2R, having a hydrogen-bond donor group R, gave the corresponding chiral products of trans oxidative addition [PtBrMe2(CH2R)(6-dppd)], 2a, R = CO2H; 3, R = 4-C6H4CO2H; 4, R = 4-C6H4CH2CO2H; 7, R = 2-C6H4CH2OH; 8, R = 4-C6H4B(OH)2; 9, R = 3-C6H4B(OH)2; and 10, R = 2-C6H4B(OH)2. Complex 2a was formed in equilibrium with two isomers formed by cis oxidative addition, while the reaction of 1 with BrCH2CH2CO2H gave mostly [PtBrMe(6-dppd)], 6. The supramolecular chemistry was studied by structure determination of six of the platinum(IV) complexes, with emphasis on the preference of the hydrogen bond acceptor (O, pyridyl N, or Br atom), formation of monomer, dimer, or polymer, and self-recognition or self-discrimination in self-assembly. Complex 7 formed a monomer with the OH···N hydrogen bond, and complexes 2a and 10 formed racemic dimers by complementary hydrogen bonding with self-discrimination between CO2H or B(OH)2 groups, respectively. Complexes 3, 4, and 9 formed polymers by intermolecular hydrogen bonding with self-recognition, with 4 containing OH···N and 3 and 9 containing OH···Br hydrogen bonds. It is concluded that there is no clear preference for the hydrogen bond acceptor group, and that the observed product depends also on the orientation of the hydrogen bond donor group.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".