Aurophilicity and Photoluminescence of (6‐Diphenylpnicogenoacenaphth‐5‐yl)gold Compounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The organotin precursors 6‐Br‐Ace‐5‐SnBu 3 ( 6 , Ace = acenaphthyl) and 6‐Ph 2 E‐Ace‐5‐SnBu 3 ( 7a : E = P; 7b : E = As; 7c : E = Sb) were prepared and used for the synthesis of organogold complexes, namely, the homodinuclear arylgold(I) species (6‐Ph 2 E‐Ace‐5‐Au) 2 ( 8a : E = P; 8b : E = As; 8c : E = Sb), arylgold(III) dichloride 6‐Ph 2 P‐Ace‐5‐AuCl 2 ( 9 ), diarylgold(III) chloride [ trans ‐(6‐Ph 2 P‐Ace‐5‐) 2 Au]Cl ([ 10 ]Cl), as well as the heterodinuclear gold complexes 6‐Ph 2 P(AuX)‐Ace‐5‐Au(AsPh 3 ) ( 11a : X = Cl; 11b : X = Br). Compounds 8a ‐ 8c , 11a , and 11b show significant aurophilic interactions, which are related to their photoluminescence upon exposure to UV light. In the solid state, 11a and 11b show green‐yellow emission, whereas 8a ‐ 8c are non‐emissive. In solution under an argon atmosphere, all five compounds 8a ‐ 8c as well as 11a and 11b show green‐yellow emission. The organogold complexes were characterized by multinuclear NMR spectroscopy, photoluminescence spectroscopy, single‐crystal X‐ray crystallography, as well as (TD‐)DFT calculations including real‐space bond indicators derived from atoms‐in‐molecules (AIM), the electron localization indicator (ELI‐D), and the non‐covalent interaction (NCI) index.
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) | 0.002 | 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".