Synthesis and Structural Characterization of a Silver(I) Pyrazolato Coordination Polymer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coinage metal(I)···metal(I) interactions are widely of interest in fields such as supramolecular assembly and unique luminescent properties, etc. Only two types of polynuclear silver(I) pyrazolato complexes have been reported, however, and no detailed spectroscopic characterizations have been reported. An unexpected synthetic method yielded a polynuclear silver(I) complex [Ag(μ-L1Clpz)]n (L1Clpz− = 4-chloride-3,5-diisopropyl-1-pyrazolate anion) by the reaction of {[Ag(μ-L1Clpz)]3}2 with (nBu4N)[Ag(CN)2]. The obtained structure was compared with the known hexanuclear silver(I) complex {[Ag(μ-L1Clpz)]3}2. The Ag···Ag distances in [Ag(μ-L1Clpz)]n are slightly shorter than twice Bondi’s van der Waals radius, indicating some Ag···Ag argentophilic interactions. Two Ag–N distances in [Ag(μ-L1Clpz)]n were found: 2.0760(13) and 2.0716(13) Å, and their N–Ag–N bond angles of 180.00(7)° and 179.83(5)° indicate that each silver(I) ion is coordinated by two pyrazolyl nitrogen atoms with an almost linear coordination. Every five pyrazoles point in the same direction to form a 1-D zig-zag structure. Some spectroscopic properties of [Ag(μ-L1Clpz)]n in the solid-state are different from those of {[Ag(μ-L1Clpz)]3}2 (especially in the absorption and emission spectra), presumably attributable to this zig-zag structure having longer but differently arranged intramolecular Ag···Ag interactions of 3.39171(17) Å. This result clearly demonstrates the different physicochemical properties in the solid-state between 1-D coordination polymer and metalacyclic trinuclear (hexanuclear) or tetranuclear silver(I) pyrazolate complexes.
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) | 0.001 | 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".