Direct assembly between closed-shell coinage metal superatoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bottom-up constructing all-metal functional materials is challenging, because the metal clusters are prone to lose their original structures during coalensence. In this work, we report that closed-shell coinage metal superatoms can achieve direct chemical bonding without losing their electronic properties. The reason is that the supermolecule formed by two superatoms has the same number of bonding and anti-bonding supermolecular orbitals, in which the bonding orbitals contribute to bonding and the anti-bonding orbitals with anti-phase orbitals delocalized over each monomer to maintain the individual geometric and electronic structural properties. Further analysis indicates the interactions between two superatoms are too weak to break the structure of monomers, which is confirmed by the first-principles molecular dynamics simulations. With these superatoms as the basic units, a series of robust one-dimensional and two-dimensional nanostructures are fabricated. Our findings provide a general strategy to take advantage of superatoms in regulating bonding compared to natural atoms, which paves the way for the bottom-up design of materials with collective properties.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".