Site‐Specific Electronic Properties of [Ag <sub>25</sub> (SR) <sub>18</sub> ] <sup>−</sup> Nanoclusters by X‐Ray Spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Silver nanoclusters (NCs) are of significant interest owing to their interesting structural, electronic, and catalytic properties. Among these NCs, Ag 25 (SR) 18 is particularly attractive due to its identical geometry as its Au counterpart, Au 25 (SR) 18 . Herein, the site‐specific electronic properties of Ag 25 (SR) 18 and Au 25 (SR) 18 using X‐ray spectroscopy experiments and quantum simulations are presented. To overcome the final state effect observed in X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), a unique method is developed to reliably analyze the charge transfer behavior of the NCs. Density functional theory calculations are combined with XPS to provide more insight into the electronic properties of the NCs. The differences in the XPS valence bands of these two NCs are further compared and interpreted using the relativistic effect. The first derivative of the X‐ray absorption near‐edge structure (XANES) spectrum is further used as a tool to sensitively probe the bonding properties of Ag 25 (SR) 18 . By combining the experimental XANES data and their site‐specific quantum simulations, the large impact of the staple motif on the bonding properties of the NC is demonstrated. These findings highlight the unique electronic properties of each atomic site in Ag 25 (SR) 18 ; the effective X‐ray analysis techniques developed here can offer new opportunities for the site‐specific study of other NCs.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".