Ladder-Type Cu(II) Coordination Polymer with π–π Stacking of Planar Blatter Radical Ligands: Structural and Magnetic Characterization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide The synthesis of two C(2)-pyridyl derivatives of the planar Blatter radical was developed by using the tris(trimethylsilyl)silane (TTMSS)-assisted cyclization of appropriate iodoarenes. These monodentate paramagnetic ligands were characterized by spectroscopic (UV–vis and electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR)) and electrochemical methods and reacted with (pdc)Cu(H 2 O) 3 . A complex containing the 3-pyridyl group was characterized structurally, revealing novel polymeric Cu–O–Cu–O ladders separated with slipped stacks of radical ligands. Superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) magnetometry of this complex demonstrated strong antiferromagnetic interactions between the radicals and largely isolated Cu(II) ions. Analysis of the magnetic data with the Hatfield model, assuming two isolated one-dimensional (1D) alternating Heisenberg chains, gave J RR / k B = −1200 K and α RR = 0.4 for the paramagnetic ligand stacks, and J CuCu / k B = −3.5 K and α CuCu = 0.9 for the Cu(II) ion chains. Analysis of the experimental data was augmented with density functional theory (DFT) calculations.
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".