Mapping the coordination space for C−H•••M interactions in confined spaces: (α-ICyDᴹᵉ)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. Whereas electrostatics is strongly stabilizing 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 (a-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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".