Inducing Platinophilic Interactions in [Pt(SCN)<sub>4</sub>]<sup>2–</sup> Salts by Cation Tuning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of simple [Pt(SCN) 4 ] 2– salts with a variety of cations was synthesized and characterized using X-ray crystallography to determine factors that could induce platinophilic interactions between [Pt(SCN) 4 ] 2– anions, including cation size and shape, charge, and ability to participate in hydrogen bonding. The salts [N(PPh 3 ) 2 ] 2 [Pt(SCN) 4 ], [AsPh 4 ] 2 [Pt(SCN) 4 ], and [Co(1,10-phenanthroline) 3 ][Pt(SCN) 4 ] feature bulky, noncoordinating cations where the [Pt(SCN) 4 ] 2– anions are completely separated from each other, with no Pt–Pt interactions present. Salts containing the hydrogen-bonding cations [Co(NH 3 ) 6 ] 2 [Pt(SCN) 4 ] 3 and [Co(en) 3 ] 2 [Pt(SCN) 4 ] 3 (en = 1,2-ethylenediamine) display close Pt–Pt distances, with both compounds exhibiting platinophilic interactions with distances of 3.373(2) and 3.539(8) Å, respectively, the first reported platinophilic interactions with the [Pt(SCN) 4 ] 2– unit. [Co(en) 3 ] 2 [Pt(SCN) 4 ] 3 also presents intermolecular chalcogen S···S and Pt···S interactions, resulting in increased dimensionality while also assisting in assembling the platinophilic interaction. The compounds are emissive at 77 K in the solid state, exhibiting a d–d metal-centered transition regardless of whether or not any platinophilic interactions are present. Overall, hydrogen-bonding cations are most likely to promote close proximity of the Pt(II) metal centers and induce the formation of platinophilic interactions in [Pt(SCN) 4 ] 2– .
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; 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".