Synthesis, Structures, and Single‐Molecule Magnetic Properties of Three Dy<sub>2</sub> Complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To explore the influences of the subtle structural variations in the ligand backbones on the single‐molecule magnetic properties of dinuclear dysprosium(III) complexes, three ligands—H2L1 (H2L1=N1,N3‐bis(salicylaldehyde)diethylenetriamine), H2L2 (H2L2=N1,N3‐bis(3‐methoxysalicylidene)diethylenetriamine), and H2L3 (H2L3=N1,N3‐bis(5‐chlorosalicyladehyde)diethylenetriamine)—were synthesized and employed to prepare the expected dinuclear dysprosium(III) complexes. The three ligands differ in terms of the substituents at the benzene rings of the salicylaldehyde moieties. The reactions of Dy(NO3)3⋅6 H2O, pivalic acid, and the ligands H2L1, H2L2, and H2L3 generated complexes with the formulae [Dy2(L1)2(piv)2] (1), [Dy2(L2)2(piv)2] (2), and [Dy2(L3)2(piv)2]⋅ 2 MeCN (3), respectively. The purposeful attachment of the functional groups with varied sizes at the benzene rings of the salicylaldehyde backbones resulted in slight differences in the Dy‐O‐Dy bond angles and the Dy⋅⋅⋅Dy bond lengths in 1–3; consequently, the three complexes exhibited distinct magnetic properties. They all showed slow magnetization relaxation with energy barriers of 40.32 (1), 31.67 (2), and 33.53 K (3). Complete active space self‐consistent field (CASSCF) calculations were performed on complexes 1–3 to rationalize the slight discrepancy observed in the magnetic behavior. The calculated results satisfactorily explained the experimental outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 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".