MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065930213 · doi:10.1021/jp806919k

Role of the Geometry, Restricted Rotations and Solvents on the Computed 2,2′-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl Hyperfine Tensors

2008· article· en· W2065930213 on OpenAlexaff
Saba M. Mattar, Jacob Sanford

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry A · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicElectron Spin Resonance Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperfine structureTensor (intrinsic definition)ChemistryIsotropyProtonComputational chemistryNuclear magnetic resonanceAtomic physicsMolecular physicsGeometryPhysicsQuantum mechanicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nuclear hyperfine tensor (A) components of the 2,2'-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl neutral radical are computed using the UB1LYP hybrid density functional method. Solvent interactions via hydrogen bonding are found to play a crucial role in the position of the two phenyl rings relative to the picryl moiety. Under these conditions, the calculated isotropic hyperfine tensor components of the N 1 and N 2 hydrazyl backbone are within approximately 1.3 Gauss (G) of the experimental values determined by EPR and ENDOR spectroscopy. Just as important are the effects of restricted rotations of the phenyl rings on these tensors. Rotational averaging using a Maxwell-Boltzmann type distribution improves the agreement between theory and experiment to less than 1.0 G. In addition, rotational averaging of the twelve isotropic proton coupling constants has also been performed. They come within 0.3 G of the experimental values. Thus, for the first time, all the nuclear hyperfine tensor components of this large class of molecules are accurately calculated without resorting to post Hartree-Fock techniques.

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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry ASame topicElectron Spin Resonance StudiesFrench-language works237,207