Synthesis, Structures, and Single‐Molecule Magnetic Properties of Three Dy<sub>2</sub> Complexes
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 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—H 2 L 1 (H 2 L 1 =N 1 ,N 3 ‐bis(salicylaldehyde)diethylenetriamine), H 2 L 2 (H 2 L 2 =N 1 ,N 3 ‐bis(3‐methoxysalicylidene)diethylenetriamine), and H 2 L 3 (H 2 L 3 =N 1 ,N 3 ‐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(NO 3 ) 3 ⋅ 6 H 2 O, pivalic acid, and the ligands H 2 L 1 , H 2 L 2 , and H 2 L 3 generated complexes with the formulae [Dy 2 (L 1 ) 2 (piv) 2 ] ( 1 ), [Dy 2 (L 2 ) 2 (piv) 2 ] ( 2 ), and [Dy 2 (L 3 ) 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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 it