Calculations of the Contribution of Ring Currents to the Chemical Shielding Anisotropy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ring currents can exert a large effect upon the chemical shielding of NMR resonances. The analytical expression developed by Waugh and Fessenden (Waugh, J. S.; Fessenden, R. W. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1957, 79, 846) and Johnson and Bovey (Johnson, C. E.; Bovey, F. A. J. Chem. Phys. 1957, 29, 1012) only quantifies the contribution of ring currents to the isotropic component of the shielding tensor. In the work described here an additional analytical expression is developed so that the contribution of ring currents to the full shielding tensor can be calculated, allowing an estimate of the influence of ring currents upon the chemical shielding anisotropy (CSA, Deltasigma). To test that this pair of analytical expressions can provide a reasonable estimate of the contribution of ring currents to the full shielding tensor a series of density functional calculations (DFT) were carried out. A shielding tensor in a model compound was calculated in two distinct ways. For the first series, DFT shielding calculations of the model compound were carried out in the presence of a benzene ring. For the second series a ring current contribution to the shielding tensor was calculated via the new expressions, and this was added to the result of a DFT shielding calculation which used in place of benzene the nonaromatic analogue 1,3 cyclohexadiene. The two series of results proved to be in excellent agreement. The pair of analytical expressions are used to calculate ring current contributions to the CSA (Deltasigma) of 1H(N) backbone amide resonances in a structure of the second type 2 module from the protein fibronectin. Significant CSA variations are predicted in particular for the 1H(N) of G42 which is most likely involved in a N-H...tpi aromatic hydrogen bond.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".