Luminescence and Single‐Molecule Magnet Properties in Ideal Symmetry Compounds: Example of a Near‐Planar Tricoordinate Ytterbium(III) Amide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We are reporting on the use of a low‐coordinate Yb III amide with near‐ideal planar trigonal [Yb{N(SiMe 3 ) 2 } 3 ] ( 1 ) and on a bipyramidal trigonal derivative [Yb{N(SiMe 2 H) 2 } 3 ⋅ (thf) 2 ] ( 2 ) that constitute quintessential cases to investigate luminescent and magnetic properties otherwise usually blurred on less symmetrical compounds. These compounds represent the first experimental objects that allow for the confirmation of the recent conjecture about best‐performing SMM built on the archetypal prolate lanthanide ion. We have performed a combined theoretical, luminescent, and magnetic study on these molecules. For 1 , a spectacular split of the 2 F 7/2 ground state of 1312 cm −1 is measured by low‐temperature near‐infra‐red luminescence as well as the calculated pure wavefunction composition of the low‐lying Kramers doublets, making this complex a textbook example of a prolate SMM. These results are corroborated by comparison with 2 , that exhibits as expected a 50 % decrease of the ground state splitting compared to 1 . Yet, we show that these remarkable features are insufficient to promote SMM behavior, and Orbach relaxation is unlikely to occur even on such an ideal low‐coordinate SMM without control of spin‐phonon coupling.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".