Synthesis, Crystal Structure, and Magnetic Properties of Li<sub>3</sub>Mg<sub>2</sub>OsO<sub>6</sub>, a Geometrically Frustrated Osmium(V) Oxide with an Ordered Rock Salt Structure: Comparison with Isostructural Li<sub>3</sub>Mg<sub>2</sub>RuO<sub>6</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The novel osmium-based oxide Li(3)Mg(2)OsO(6) was synthesized in polycrystalline form by reducing Li(5)OsO(6) by osmium metal and osmium(IV) oxide in the presence of stoichiometric amounts of magnesium oxide. The crystal structure was refined using powder X-ray diffraction data in the orthorhombic Fddd space group with a = 5.88982(5) Å, b = 8.46873(6) Å, and c = 17.6825(2) Å. This compound is isostructural and isoelectronic with the ruthenium-based system Li(3)Mg(2)RuO(6). The magnetic ion sublattice Os(5+) (S = 3/2) consists of chains of interconnected corner- and edge-shared triangles, which brings about the potential for geometric magnetic frustration. The Curie-Weiss law holds over the range 80-300 K with C = 1.42(3) emu·K/mol [μ(eff) = 3.37(2) μ(B)] and θ(C) = -105.8(2) K. Below 80 K, there are three anomalies at 75, 30, and 8 K. Those at 75 and 30 K are suggestive of short-range antiferromagnetic correlations, while that at 8 K is a somewhat sharper maximum showing a zero-field-cooled/field-cooled divergence suggestive of perhaps spin freezing. The absence of magnetic Bragg peaks at 3.9 K in the neutron diffraction pattern supports this characterization, as does the absence of a sharp peak in the heat capacity, which instead shows only a very broad maximum at ∼12 K. A frustration index of f = 106/8 = 13 indicates a high degree of frustration. The magnetic properties of the osmium phase differ markedly from those of the isostructural ruthenium material, which shows long-range antiferromagnetic order below 17 K, f = 6, and no unusual features at higher temperatures. Estimates of the magnetic exchange interactions at the level of spin-dimer analysis for both the ruthenium and osmium materials support a more frustrated picture for the latter. Errors in the calculation and assignment of the exchange pathways in the previous report on Li(3)Mg(2)RuO(6) are identified and corrected.
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 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) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".