MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153196548 · doi:10.1139/v09-094

Validation of broken-symmetry density functional methods for the calculation of electron paramagnetic resonance parameters of dinuclear mixed-valence Mn <sup>IV</sup> Mn <sup>III</sup> complexes

2009· article· en· W2153196548 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sandra Schinzel, Martin Kaupp

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMagnetism in coordination complexes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsChemistryElectron paramagnetic resonanceHyperfine structureDensity functional theoryHybrid functionalValence (chemistry)Computational chemistryNuclear magnetic resonanceAtomic physicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

. The EPR parameters of a series of dinuclear manganese(III,IV) complexes with mono(μ-oxo), bis(μ-oxo), (μ-oxo)(μ-carboxylato), bis(μ-oxo)(μ-carboxylato), and (μ-oxo)bis(μ-carboxylato) bridges were studied by broken-symmetry density functional (DFT) methods. The influence of the exchange-correlation functional on the agreement with experiment has been evaluated systematically for g tensors; 55 Mn, 14 N, and 1 H hyperfine coupling tensors; and Heisenberg exchange couplings. 14 N and 1 H hyperfine couplings, 55 Mn hyperfine anisotropies, g tensors, and exchange couplings are well described by hybrid functionals with moderate exact-exchange admixtures such as B3LYP. The isotropic 55 Mn hyperfine couplings require larger exact-exchange admixtures. However, the errors of the B3LYP calculations are systematic and may be corrected by a constant scaling factor, providing good predictive power for a wide range of EPR parameters with broken-symmetry DFT and standard functionals. The influence of terminal and bridging ligands on structure, spin-density distributions, and EPR parameters are evaluated systematically. Computed hyperfine and g tensors are not covariant to each other. This may have consequences for spectra simulations. The nature of the broken-symmetry state and the origin of its spin contamination were analyzed by an expansion into restricted determinants, based on paired orbitals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations40
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicMagnetism in coordination complexesFrench-language works237,207