Reactions of Molybdenum and Tungsten Oxide Tetrafluoride with Sulfur(IV) Lewis Bases: Structure and Bonding in [WOF<sub>4</sub>]<sub>4</sub>, MOF<sub>4</sub>(OSO), and [SF<sub>3</sub>][M<sub>2</sub>O<sub>2</sub>F<sub>9</sub>] (M = Mo, W)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The structure of [WOF4]4 has been reinvestigated by low-temperature X-ray crystallography and DFT (MN15/def2-SVPD) studies. Whereas the W4F4 ring of the tetramer is planar and disordered in the solid state, the optimized gas-phase geometry prefers a disphenoidally puckered W4F4 ring and demonstrates asymmetric fluorine bridging. Dissolution of MOF4 (M = Mo, W) in SO2 and SF4 results in the formation of MOF4(OSO) and [SF3][M2O2F9], respectively. Both SO2 adducts and [SF3][Mo2O2F9] have been characterized by X-ray crystallography. The crystal structure of [SF3][Mo2O2F9] reveals dimerization of the ion pair that results in a rare heptacoordinate sulfur center. Optimization of the {[SF3][M2O2F9]}2 dimers in the gas phase, however, results in the elongation of one contact such that the sulfur centers are effectively hexacoordinate. Meanwhile, the crystal structure of [SF3][W2O2F9]·HF instead demonstrates hexacoordinate sulfur centers and a highly unusual coordination to [SF3]+ from [W2O2F9]− through an oxido ligand. While [SF3][W2O2F9] does not decompose at ambient temperature, MOF4(OSO) and [SF3][Mo2O2F9] are unstable toward evolution of SO2 or SF4. Computational studies reveal that the monomerization of [WOF4]4 in the gas phase at 25 °C is thermodynamically unfavorable using SO2, but favorable using SF4, consistent with the relative thermal stabilities of WOF4(OSO) and [SF3][W2O2F9].
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| 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".