Mapping C−H⋅⋅⋅M Interactions in Confined Spaces: (α‐ICyD <sup>Me</sup> )Au, Ag, Cu Complexes Reveal “Contra‐electrostatic H Bonds” Masquerading as Anagostic Interactions**
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract What happens when a C−H bond is forced to interact with unpaired pairs of electrons at a positively charged metal? Such interactions can be considered as “contra‐electrostatic” H‐bonds, which combine the familiar orbital interaction pattern characteristic for the covalent contribution to the conventional H‐bonding with an unusual contra‐electrostatic component. While electrostatics is strongly stabilizing component in the conventional C−H⋅⋅⋅X bonds where X is an electronegative main group element, it is destabilizing in the C−H⋅⋅⋅M contacts when M is Au(I), Ag(I), or Cu(I) of NHC−M−Cl systems. Such remarkable C−H⋅⋅⋅M interaction became experimentally accessible within (α‐ICyD Me )MCl, NHC‐Metal complexes embedded into cyclodextrins. Computational analysis of the model systems suggests that the overall interaction energies are relatively insensitive to moderate variations in the directionality of interaction between a C−H bond and the metal center, indicating stereoelectronic promiscuity of fully filled set of d ‐orbitals. A combination of experimental and computational data demonstrates that metal encapsulation inside the cyclodextrin cavity forces the C−H bond to point toward the metal, and reveals a still attractive “contra‐electrostatic” H‐bonding interaction.
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".