Investigations on the local structure and the EPR parameters for the tetragonal Cu<sup>2+</sup> center in ZnSeF<sub>6</sub>·6H<sub>2</sub>O crystal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) parameters (g factors g∥, g⊥ and hyperfine structure constants A∥, A⊥) and the local structure of the tetragonal Cu2+ center in trigonal ZnSeF6·6H2O crystal are theoretically investigated from the perturbation formulas of these parameters for a 3d9 ion in tetragonally elongated octahedra. In the calculated formulas, the contributions to the EPR parameters from ligand orbital and spin–orbit coupling are included on the basis of the cluster approach in view of moderate covalency of the studied systems, the required crystal-field parameters are estimated from the superposition model, which enables correlation of the crystal-field parameters and hence the EPR parameters with the tetragonal distortion of the studied [Cu(H2O)6]2+ cluster. According to the calculations, the ligand octahedra around Cu2+ are suggested to suffer relative elongation τ (≈ 0.085 Å) along the [001] (or C4) axis for the tetragonal Cu2+ centers in ZnSeF6·6H2O crystal, due to the Jahn–Teller effect. The results are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".