Design and synthesis of pillared metal-organic frameworks featuring olefinic fragments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) are known primarily for their well-defined crystalline porous structures that make them desirable in myriads of applications, they also distinguish themselves with their chemical tunability. One strategy for chemical tailoring of MOF structures is post-synthetic modification (PSM) targeting moieties present in their organic building blocks (linkers). In that context, alkene (olefinic) fragments are underrepresented in the realm of MOFs despite their extremely well-established and versatile chemistry. With the majority of reported olefinic MOFs falling into the microporous regime, the PSM opportunities involving bulkier reagents are severely limited. Herein, we report a family of UofT (University of Toronto) pillared MOFs constructed around olefinic 1,4-bis(2-(pyridin-4-yl)vinyl)benzene (BPVB) and tetrakis(4-carboxyphenyl)porphyrin (TCPP) linkers. By utilizing a variety of M(II) [M = Zn, Ni, Co] precursors, three structurally distinct frameworks were synthesized and characterized. Most notably, the nickel-based framework represents the first reported example of stable mesoporous olefinic pillared MOF. In addition to de novo formation of stable pillared MOF, Ni(II) is also used in a cation exchange process to structurally reinforce zinc-based framework.
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".