Nanoporous Lanthanide–Copper(<scp>II</scp>) Coordination Polymers: Syntheses and Crystal Structures of [{M<sub>2</sub>(Cu<sub>3</sub>(iminodiacetate)<sub>6</sub>)}⋅8 H<sub>2</sub>O]<i><sub>n</sub></i> (M=La, Nd, Eu)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Communication “Nanoporous Lanthanide–Copper( II ) Coordination Polymers: Syntheses and Crystal Structures of [{M 2 (Cu 3 (iminodiacetate) 6 )}⋅8 H 2 O] n (M=La, Nd, Eu)” by Y.‐P. Ren, L.‐S. Long, et al. ( 1 ) the authors missed important references: “Synthesis, Crystal Structure and Magnetic Properties of a Series of Polymeric Lanthanoid–Copper Complexes [Ln 2 Cu 3 {O(CH 2 CO 2 ) 2 } 6 ]⋅ n H 2 O (Ln=La, Nd, n =9; Ln=Er, n =6)” (J. G. Mao, J. S. Huang, J. F. Ma, J. Z. Ni, Trans. Met. Chem. 1997 , 22 , 277–280), “Synthesis and Crystal Structure of a Novel Lanthanide–Copper Mixed Metal Complex: Gd 2 Cu 3 {O(CH 2 COO) 2 } 6 ⋅9 H 2 O” (J. G. Mao, L. Song, X. Y. Huang, J. S. Huang, Polyhedron 1997 , 16 , 963–966), “Synthesis and Structural Characterization of a Novel Polymeric Gadolinium( III )–Copper( II ) Complex of Iminodiacetic Acid” (J. G. Mao, L. Song, J. S. Huang, J. Chem. Crystallogr. 1998 , 28 , 475–479), and “Synthesis and Crystal Structure of a New Praseodymiun( III )–Copper( II ) Polymeric Complex: [Pr 2 (Cu 3 (L 1 ) 6 ) n ] (H 2 L 1 =NH{CH 2 COOH} 2 )” (J. G. Mao, L Song, J. S. Huang , Chinese J. Struct. Chem. 1999 , 18 , 4–8). The authors apologize for this oversight and thank Qinde Liu of Queen's University, Canada, and Prof. J. G. Mao, Fuzhou, China, for bringing it to their attention.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; 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".