Syntheses and Characterizations of the Mixed Noble‐Gas Compounds, [FKr<sup>II</sup>FXe<sup>II</sup>F][AsF<sub>6</sub>]⋅0.5 Kr<sup>II</sup>F<sub>2</sub>⋅2 HF, ([Kr<sup>II</sup><sub>2</sub>F<sub>3</sub>][AsF<sub>6</sub>])<sub>2</sub>⋅Xe<sup>IV</sup>F<sub>4</sub>, and Xe<sup>IV</sup>F<sub>4</sub>⋅Kr<sup>II</sup>F<sub>2</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Reaction of [XeF][AsF 6 ] with excess KrF 2 at −78 °C in anhydrous HF (aHF) solvent has yielded the first mixed Kr II /Xe II noble‐gas compound, [FKrFXeF][AsF 6 ] ⋅0.5 KrF 2 ⋅2 HF, a salt of the [FKrFXeF] + cation. The potent oxidative fluorinating properties of Kr II fluoride species resulted in oxidation of Xe II to Xe IV in aHF at −60 °C to form the mixed Kr II /Xe IV cocrystals, ([Kr 2 F 3 ][AsF 6 ]) 2 ⋅XeF 4 and XeF 4 ⋅KrF 2 . Further decomposition at 22 °C resulted in oxidation of Xe IV to Xe VI to give the recently reported Kr II /Xe VI complexes, [F 5 Xe(FKrF) n ][AsF 6 ] ( n =1, 2), [F 5 Xe][AsF 6 ], and a new Kr II /Xe VI complex, [(F 5 Xe) 2 (μ‐FKrF)(AsF 6 ) 2 ], which was characterized by low‐temperature (LT) Raman spectroscopy. The [FKrFXeF][AsF 6 ]⋅0.5 KrF 2 ⋅2 HF, ([Kr 2 F 3 ][AsF 6 ]) 2 ⋅XeF 4 , and XeF 4 ⋅KrF 2 compounds were characterized by LT Raman spectroscopy and single‐crystal X‐ray diffraction. Quantum‐chemical calculations were used to assess the bonding in [FKrFXeF] + , [Kr 2 F 3 ] + , and [Xe 2 F 3 ] + and to aid in their vibrational assignments.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".