MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167149495 · doi:10.1021/ar020271+

Microwave Spectroscopy and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance SpectroscopyWhat Is the Connection?

2003· article· en· W2167149495 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounts of Chemical Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced NMR Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopySpectroscopyMicrowaveHyperfine structureSpin (aerodynamics)Nuclear magnetic resonanceChemistryRotational spectroscopyInterpretation (philosophy)Chemical shiftElectromagnetic shieldingCoupling constantChemical physicsPhysicsAtomic physicsQuantum mechanicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The history and development of microwave spectroscopy and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy have much in common. In this Account, we discuss the less widely appreciated connections between the parameters measured using the two techniques. Selected examples from our laboratory and from the recent literature attest to the utility and importance of these connections. For example, how are nuclear spin-rotation tensors and NMR chemical shifts related? Why should chemists be interested in absolute magnetic shielding scales? What can chemists learn about trends in spin-spin coupling constants from the hyperfine parameters measured in microwave and molecular beam experiments? The increasingly important role of quantum-chemical calculations in the interpretation of the microwave and NMR data is also highlighted.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.325 · 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