Carbonylmetallates as Versatile 2‐, 4‐ or 6‐Electron Donor Metalloligands in Transition‐Metal Complexes and Clusters: A Global Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Carbonylmetallates [m] − , such as [MoCp(CO) 3 ] − , [Mn(CO) 5 ] − , [Co(CO) 4 ] − , have long been successfully used in the preparation of hundreds of metal‐metal bonded carbonyl complexes and clusters, in particular of the heterometallic type. We focus here on situations where [m] − can be viewed as a terminal, doubly or even triply bridging metalloligand, developing metal‐metal interactions with one, two or three metal centers M, respectively. With metals M from the Groups 10–12, it is not straightforward or even impossible to rationalize the structure of the resulting clusters by applying the well‐known Wade‐Mingos rules. A very simple but global approach is presented to rationalize structures not obeying usual electron‐counting rules by considering the anionic building blocks [m] − as metalloligands behaving formally as potential 2‐, 4‐ or 6‐electron donors, similarly to what is typically encountered with for example halido ligands. Qualitative and theoretical arguments by using DFT calculations highlight similarities between seemingly unrelated metal complexes and clusters and also entail a predicting power with high synthetic potential.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 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".