Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article reviews progress in actinide amido chemistry, highlighting the role of amido anions as constituents of robust supporting ligands and as reactive ligands. The synthesis, structures, and reactivity of homoleptic actinide complexes in oxidation states III–VI are initially reviewed. Reactivity developed using an ancillary ligand set composed of three bulky monodentate amido anions is then discussed, followed by the chemistry of N(CH2CH2NSiR3)3(TrenX) and HC(SiMe2NAr)3(TsX) ligands, which feature three amido anions within a multidentate ligand framework. These trisamido ligand platforms have been used to develop a remarkable breadth of actinide chemistry, including terminal UE and U(η2‐E2) linkages (E = S, Se, or Te), the first terminal nitrido complexes of uranium(V) and (VI), a unique nitrido analogue of the uranyl anion [NUO]+, the only terminal PH and AsH complexes of a d‐ or f‐element, and the first metal complex containing the elusive As2H2molecule. Complexes of tridentate pincer ligands are also described, with a focus on organometallic derivatives, as are bidentate ligands, including redox‐active NN and NO donors. Actinide complexes of polypyrrolyl ligands containing up to eight nitrogen donors are then outlined, including a neptunium(II) complex and a highly reducing thorium(II) synthetic equivalent. Furthermore, bimetallic “Pacman”‐style uranyl complexes are reviewed, providing examples of acis‐uranyl linkage, as well as reduction and functionalization of the normally inert uranyl dication. Finally, additional facets of amido ligand reactivity are discussed, including alternative pathways to synthesize actinide amido complexes and the role of actinide–amido complexes in catalysis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".