Group 6 Oxyfluoro‐Anion Salts of [XeF<sub>5</sub>]<sup>+</sup> and [Xe<sub>2</sub>F<sub>11</sub>]<sup>+</sup>: Syntheses and Structures of [XeF<sub>5</sub>][M<sub>2</sub>O<sub>2</sub>F<sub>9</sub>] (M=Mo, W), [Xe<sub>2</sub>F<sub>11</sub>][M′OF<sub>5</sub>] (M′=Cr, Mo, W), [XeF<sub>5</sub>][HF<sub>2</sub>]⋅CrOF<sub>4</sub>, and [XeF<sub>5</sub>][WOF<sub>5</sub>]⋅XeOF<sub>4</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The reactions of the fluoride‐ion donor, XeF6, with the fluoride‐ion acceptors, M′OF4 (M′=Cr, Mo, W), yield [XeF5]+ and [Xe2F11]+ salts of [M′OF5]− and [M2O2F9]− (M=Mo, W). Xenon hexafluoride and MOF4 react in anhydrous hydrogen fluoride (aHF) to give equilibrium mixtures of [Xe2F11]+, [XeF5]+, [(HF)nF]−, [MOF5]−, and [M2O2F9]− from which the title salts were crystallized. The [XeF5][CrOF5] and [Xe2F11][CrOF5] salts could not be formed from mixtures of CrOF4 and XeF6 in aHF at low temperature (LT) owing to the low fluoride‐ion affinity of CrOF4, but yielded [XeF5][HF2]⋅CrOF4 instead. In contrast, MoOF4 and WOF4 are sufficiently Lewis acidic to abstract F− ion from [(HF)nF]− in aHF to give the [MOF5]− and [M2O2F9]− salts of [XeF5]+ and [Xe2F11]+. To circumvent [(HF)nF]− formation, [Xe2F11][CrOF5] was synthesized at LT in CF2ClCF2Cl solvent. The salts were characterized by LT Raman spectroscopy and LT single‐crystal X‐ray diffraction, which provided the first X‐ray crystal structure of the [CrOF5]− anion and high‐precision geometric parameters for [MOF5]− and [M2O2F9]−. Hydrolysis of [Xe2F11][WOF5] by water contaminant in HF solvent yielded [XeF5][WOF5]⋅XeOF4. Quantum‐chemical calculations were carried out for M′OF4, [M′OF5]−, [M′2O2F9]−, {[Xe2F11][CrOF5]}2, [Xe2F11][MOF5], and {[XeF5][M2O2F9]}2 to obtain their gas‐phase geometries and vibrational frequencies to aid in their vibrational mode assignments and to assess chemical bonding.
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) | 0.003 | 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 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".