2 N,N 0)[2-tert-butylanilinato(2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
disorder in solvent or counterion; R factor = 0.043; wR factor = 0.102; data-toparameter ratio = 15.9. The Mo VI atom in the title structure, [Mo(C10H13N)-Cl2O(C10H8N2)] 0.5CH2Cl2, has a distorted octahedral coordination sphere with cis-orientated oxide and imide ligands, trans-chloride ligands and the 2,20-bipyridine (bipy) ligand N atoms lying trans to the oxide and imide ligands. An imideligand tert-butyl-methyl-group H atom makes a close approach with the oxide ligand (distance = 2.53 A ˚ ) and the imide-ligand N atom (distance = 2.41 A ˚). Another imideligand tert-butyl-methyl-group H atom makes a close approach to a chloride ligand (distance = 2.82 A ˚). One bipyligand-H atom makes a close approach to the oxide ligand (distance = 2.4 A ˚ ) and the other-H atom makes a close approach to the imide-ligand phenyl-ring ortho-H atom (distance = 2.52 A ˚). These close approaches suggest the presence of weak intramolecular hydrogen bonds. The solvent molecule has been modelled under consideration of halfoccupancy. Related literature For other oxo-imido complexes, see: Bell et al. (1994); Barrie et al. (1999); Bradley et al. (1987); Clegg et al. (1993); Chatt et al. (1979); Clark et al. (1996,). For the trans-influence effect, see: Nugent & Mayer (1988). For close approaches of hydrogen atoms in transition metal complexes and the relationship to weak hydrogen bonds to oxygen atoms, see: Desiraju (1996); to chlorine atoms, see: Aakeroy et al. (1999); and to N atoms, see: Demers et al. (2005).
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) | 0.008 | 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 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".