MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000688148 · doi:10.1021/jp010457a

Calculation of the EPR g-Tensors of High-Spin Radicals with Density Functional Theory

2001· article· en· W2000688148 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry A · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicElectron Spin Resonance Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRadicalElectron paramagnetic resonanceTensor (intrinsic definition)ChemistryDensity functional theoryDiatomic moleculeExcited stateSpin (aerodynamics)Principal axis theoremPrincipal valueGround stateComputational chemistryAtomic physicsThermodynamicsNuclear magnetic resonanceMoleculePhysicsMathematicsMathematical analysisGeometryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The second-order DFT approach of Schreckenbach and Ziegler to the computation of EPR g tensors of doublet radicals ( J. Phys. Chem. A 1997, 101, 3388), has been generalized to arbitrary spatially nondegenerate electronic states. The new technique is applied to a large number (47) of diatomic main-group radicals, in n Σ ( n > 2) ground states. Calculated principal components, of the EPR g tensors, are in a good agreement with experiment for main group radicals, with the average errors approaching the accuracy available in experimental matrix isolation studies (VWN average absolute error: 3.8 ppt). The agreement with experiment deteriorates for the mixed, main group−transition metal radicals (VWN error: 8.1 ppt) but the major trends in Δ g ⊥ values are still reproduced. The approach largely breaks down for radicals containing chemical bonds between two transition metal atoms (VWN error: 30 ppt). In all cases, the calculated g tensors are insensitive to the choice of the approximate exchange-correlation functional, with the simple VWN LDA, and gradient-corrected BP86 and RPBE functionals, giving essentially identical results. As an example of the possible future applications of the technique, we examine the g -tensor of the first 3 B u excited state of the trans- cation. Our calculations for this systems agree well with the experimental results, both for the magnitudes, and for the orientations of the principal components.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it