A Theoretical Investigation of One-Bond Phosphorus−Phosphorus Indirect Nuclear Spin−Spin Coupling Tensors, <sup>1</sup><b>J</b>(<sup>31</sup>P,<sup>31</sup>P), Using Density Functional Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study, one-bond 31 P, 31 P indirect nuclear spin−spin coupling tensors, 1 J ( 31 P, 31 P), are calculated using nonrelativistic and relativistic zeroth-order regular approximation (ZORA) density functional theory (DFT) methods for the following model molecules and ions: P 2, cis- MeP PMe, trans- RP PR (R = H, Me, Ph), ( cis- η 1 -PhP PPh)Cr(CO) 5, ( cis - and trans- η 1 -MeP PMe)Cr(CO) 5, H 2 P−PH 2, H 2 P−PF 2, cis - and trans- diphosphetes, a phosphole tetramer, [O 3 P−PO 3 ] 4-, [HO 3 P−PO 3 H] 2-, [FO 2 P−PO 2 F] 2-, Me 2 (S)P−P(S)Me 2, [MeN⋮P−PMe 3 ] +, and Me 3 P−PF 5 . These compounds have been chosen because the values of 1 J ( 31 P, 31 P) iso in these systems vary from approximately −480 to +770 Hz, thereby spanning the known range of experimentally measured one-bond 31 P, 31 P indirect nuclear spin−spin coupling constants. However, in many cases, the sign of 1 J ( 31 P, 31 P) iso has not been determined by experiment. Our DFT results for 1 J ( 31 P, 31 P) iso and the anisotropy of J are in qualitative agreement with experimental values; furthermore, our calculations provide the absolute sign of 1 J ( 31 P, 31 P) iso in cases where it is unknown experimentally. A number of empirical trends between 1 J ( 31 P, 31 P) iso and various structural parameters have been reproduced by our calculations. Inspection of the mechanisms which contribute to 1 J ( 31 P, 31 P) iso indicates that the Fermi contact (FC) mechanism dominates in all cases where formal single P,P bonds exist and that the paramagnetic spin−orbit mechanism is of equal or greater importance in comparison with the FC mechanism in cases where formal multiple P,P bonds exist. Results from relativistic ZORA DFT calculations differ from the nonrelativistic calculations by less than 10%, indicating that inclusion of relativistic effects is not crucial, as anticipated, given that the systems investigated herein contain relatively light atoms ( Z ≤ 24).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".