Luminescent Indium Dicyanoaurate Coordination Polymers with Short Aurophilic Interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of coordination polymers were synthesized by combining In(OTf) 3 (OTf = trifluoromethanesulfonate), 2,2’;6’,2”-terpyridine (Terpy) or its substituted analogues 4’-amino-2,2’;6’,2”-terpyridine (NH 2 -Terpy), 4’-chloro-2,2’;6’,2”-terpyridine (Cl-Terpy), and 4’-bromo-2,2’;6’,2”-terpyridine (Br-Terpy), with K[Au(CN) 2 ]. All compounds consist of 1D chains of hydroxy-bridged [In 2 (OH) 2 (X-Terpy) 2 ] 4+ dimers connected to a 1D chain of [Au(CN) 2 ] − units featuring very short aurophilic interactions (3.0106(3)-3.2155(4) Å). The distance of the aurophilic interaction is directly tunable through minor modifications of the ligand, with the Au(I)···Au(I) distance increasing as the size of the substituent on the Terpy ligand increases. The compounds display photoluminescence emission maxima ranging from 600 to 650 nm, which are significantly lower energy than for most [Au(CN) 2 ] − -based materials. The emission maxima shift to higher energy as the aurophilic interactions become longer. These results demonstrate the ability to tune the Au(I)···Au(I) distance, and in turn the luminescence, by varying the size of the substituent on the chelating ligand.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".