MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008804702 · doi:10.1063/1.1569243

Efficient calculation of electron paramagnetic resonance g-tensors by multireference configuration interaction sum-over-state expansions, using the atomic mean-field spin–orbit method

2003· article· en· W2008804702 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Brownridge, Friedrich Grein, Jörg Tatchen, Martin Kleinschmidt, Christel M. Marian

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultireference configuration interactionChemistryBasis setAtomic physicsExcited stateConfiguration interactionValence (chemistry)Tensor (intrinsic definition)Wave functionComputational chemistryPhysicsDensity functional theoryGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using the multireference configuration interaction method due to Grimme and Waletzke, combined with the atomic mean-field approximations for the efficient calculation of spin–orbit matrix elements, the g-tensors in second-order perturbation theory have been calculated for the main group radicals CO+, CN, BO, BS, MgF, AlO, O2, HCO, H2O+, NO2, CO2−, NF2, NO22−, O3−, ClO2, and H2CO+, and for the transition metal compounds ZnH, ZnF, and TiF3, using explicit sum-over-state expansions for up to 20 excited states. In most cases, a valence triple-zeta basis set with polarization functions has been employed. It is shown that the addition of diffuse functions to this basis set does not improve the g-tensor results, and in several instances leads to slower convergence of the sum-over-state expansion. The calculated g-tensors are in good agreement with experimental values, and with our previous multireference configuration interaction results available for 9 of the 19 radicals. Our results are shown to be equivalent to, or better than, values obtained by other theoretical methods. Examples of radicals for which g-tensor calculations presented problems in the past are AlO and TiF3. For AlO, we obtain Δg⊥=−1530 ppm (parts per million), compared with an experimental value of −1900 ppm in Ne matrix. Using the SVP (valence double-zeta plus polarization) basis set, Δg⊥ of TiF3 is calculated to be −115.3 ppt (parts per thousand), compared with experimental values of −111.9 and −123.7 ppt.

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 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 score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207