Bibliographic record
Abstract
The diorganoselenide [Me2C(OH)CH2]2Se (1) was prepared by reacting the in situ obtained Na2Se with 1‐chloro‑2‐methyl‐2‐propanol. Reactions of 1 and [2-(Me2NCH2)C6H4]2Se (2) with appropriate silver(I) salts in 1:1 molar ratio resulted in metal complexes of type [Ag(X)Se{CH2C(OH)Me2}2] [X = OSO2CF3 (OTf) (3), OClO3 (4)] and [Ag(X)Se{C6H4(CH2NMe2)-2}2] [X = OSO2CF3 (5), ONO2 (6)], respectively. The ligand 1 and the silver complexes were investigated by appropriate spectroscopic methods, both in solution and in solid state: multinuclear NMR (1H, 13C, 19F, 77Se), ESI+ mass spectrometry, IR spectroscopy and molar conductivity. The metal complexes behave as 1:1 electrolytes in 10−3 MeOH solutions, while in solid state the anionic ligands behave as monodentate moieties. Complexes 4 and 5 were investigated by single‐crystal X‐ray diffraction. The crystal of 4 contains two similar independent molecules, 4a and 4b, for which was observed the migration of one OH hydrogen from ligand 1 to the OClO3 group, thus resulting in [Ag(HClO4)Se{OCCH2Me2}{(OH)CCH2Me2}], where ligand 1 behaves as an O,Se monometallic biconective moiety. In 5 the ligand 2 acts as a N,Se,N monometallic triconective moiety. In both compounds Ag(I) is surrounded by the donor atoms in a trigonal pyramidal coordination geometry. Strong Se→Ag intermolecular interactions in 4 resulted in 1D coordination polymers built by 4a and 4b molecules, respectively, while in the crystal of 5 no interaction between heavy atoms was observed. Supramolecular networks based on H‧‧‧O contacts are formed in both compounds.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.315 | 0.431 |
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".