Density functional calculations of <sup>19</sup>F and <sup>235</sup>U NMR chemical shifts in uranium (VI) chloride fluorides UF<sub>6−<i>n</i></sub>Cl<sub><i>n</i></sub>: Influence of the relativistic approximation and role of the exchange‐correlation functional
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Relativistic density functional theory (DFT) has been applied to the calculation of the 19 F nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) chemical shifts of the title compounds. It is shown that, while large‐core effective core potentials (ECP) fail completely for the calculation of ligand NMR chemical shifts in uranium compounds, small‐core ECPs are a valid relativistic method for this purpose. In an earlier study of the same systems, certain differences between theory and experiment had been observed, for instance, in the relative chemical shift of the A 4 and X sites in UF 5 Cl. The reason for these deviations has been investigated further in the current paper. By comparing different relativistic methods, it is shown that the relativistic approximation is not responsible for these deviations. The role of the approximation to the exchange‐correlation (XC) functional of DFT has been probed, and generalized gradient approximations (GGA) as well as hybrid DFT methods have been investigated. None of these methods corrects the mentioned errors. It is argued that the neglect of environmental factors (solvent effects) remains as a possible error source, although the approximate XC functional appears to be the more likely cause of the problem. 235 U NMR shieldings and chemical shifts have been calculated, and the trends predicted earlier have been confirmed. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Int J Quantum Chem, 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".