MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317300441 · doi:10.1021/jz101241r

Multinuclear Solid-State Magnetic Resonance Study of In<sup>+</sup> and Ag<sup>+</sup> in Neutral Weakly Coordinating Environments

2010· article· en· W2317300441 on OpenAlexafffund
Andy Y. H. Lo, Titel Jurca, D.S. Richeson, David L. Bryce

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced NMR Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Research Council CanadaFonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg
KeywordsElectric field gradientChemistryMetalPyridineSolid-state nuclear magnetic resonanceLigand (biochemistry)CrystallographyResonance (particle physics)Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopySolid-stateIonNuclear magnetic resonanceElectric fieldPhysical chemistryStereochemistryAtomic physicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A comprehensive multinuclear solid-state magnetic resonance study of In(I)- and Ag(I)bis(imino)pyridine systems is presented. Solid-state 115 In and 109 Ag NMR experiments are utilized to probe the metal cation centers, which are very weakly coordinated to the bis(imino)pyridine ligands. Along with solid-state 15 N NMR data, it is shown that the metal cations interact with the N atoms within the “pocket” of the ligands. Reasonable agreement between the measured and calculated 115 In NMR (electric field gradient and chemical shift) tensors is obtained. The relationship between the electric field gradient tensor and the arrangement of the metal center relative to the encumbered ligand is explored. The insights obtained aid in understanding the structure and bonding in these kinetically stable complexes of unstable metal ions and may assist in the rational design of other encumbered ligands for capturing reactive species.

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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry LettersSame topicAdvanced NMR Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207