Characterization of the Ligand Field in Pseudo‐Octahedral Ni(II) Complexes of Pincer‐Type Amido Ligands: Magnetism, Redox Behavior, Electronic Absorption and High‐Frequency and ‐Field EPR Spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The description of π‐donor amido moieties as ‘weak‐field’ ligands can belie the influence of metal‐ligand covalency on the overall ligand field of coordination complexes, which can in turn influence properties including the magnetic ground state and those of their excited states. In this contribution, the ligand fields of pseudo‐octahedral Ni(II) complexes supported by diarylamido pincer‐type amido ligands – three previously reported examples supported by asymmetric (2‐R‐phenanthridin‐4‐yl)(8‐quinolinyl)amido ligands (R = Cl, CF3, tBu; RL1) along with a new congener bearing a symmetric bis(8‐quinolinyl)amido ligand (BQA; L2) – were investigated in two ways. First, high‐frequency and ‐field electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy (HFEPR), SQUID magnetometry, and electronic absorption spectroscopy were used to determine the ligand field parameters. Second, the ability to electrochemically address ligand‐based oxidations despite metal‐centered SOMOs in the parent S=1 paramagnets was investigated, supported by time‐dependent density functional theory (TDDFT) identification of strong intervalence charge‐transfer (IVCT) transitions attributed to electronic communication between two Namido moieties mediated by a Ni(II) bridge. These findings are discussed in the broader context of 3d transition metal coordination complexes of weak‐field π‐donor ligands.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".