Electrochemical and X-ray structural evidence of multiple molybdenum precursor candidates from a reported non-aqueous electrodeposition of molybdenum disulfide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
-propylpiperidinium bis(trifluoromethane)sulfonimide (PP13-TFSI) from 1,4-butanedithiol and the concentrated filtrate from a reaction mixture of molybdenum(vi) trioxide and ethylene glycol could not be reproduced reliably, affording numerous uniquely coloured reaction mixtures that precipitated a variety of crystalline molybdenum coordination complexes. Further attempts to use the same two of these filtrates to electrodeposit molybdenum(iv) disulfide from 0.1 M PP13-TFSI in tetrahydrofuran with 1,4-butanedithiol at room temperature were unsuccessful. Various crude reaction mixtures grew crystals of different identity from eight attempts to synthesize the reported molybdenum-precursor. Single crystal X-ray diffraction (SC-XRD) offered insight into a wide range of structural features from four candidate paramagnetic precursor compounds, including a novel organomolybdenum cluster. Electrochemical studies of the various molybdenum-precursor filtrates, ethylene glycol, and 1,4-butanedithiol were conducted in 0.1 M PP13-TFSI in tetrahydrofuran, offering insight into differences between preparations of the molybdenum-precursor and interference between ethylene glycol and 1,4-butanedithiol on platinum working electrodes. Molybdenum(iv) disulfide electrodeposition attempts included cyclic voltammetry and chronoamperometry on platinum and glassy carbon working electrodes, which led to either no deposited material, or molybdenum, carbon, oxygen, and sulfur containing amorphous and non-homogenous deposits, as indicated by SEM-EDS analysis.
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".