MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323424308 · doi:10.1021/jp306213n

Nuclear Quadrupole Coupling Constants for N<sub>2</sub>O: Experiment and Theory

2012· article· en· W2323424308 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Brown, Roderick E. Wasylishen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry A · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryQuadrupolevan der Waals forceCoupling constantAb initioRelaxation (psychology)Computational chemistryElectric field gradientAtomic physicsMoleculePhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nuclear quadrupole coupling constants (NQCCs) for the nitrogen and oxygen nuclei in N(2)O have been determined using a variety of computational methods (MP2, QCISD, DFT with B3LYP, PBE0, and B3PW91 functionals, CCSD, CCSD(T), CASSCF, and MRCI) combined with correlation-consistent basis sets. When compared to the available experimental determinations, the results demonstrate that only CCSD(T) and MRCI methods are capable of accurately predicting the NQCCs of the central and terminal nitrogen atoms. The spin-rotation and magnetic shielding tensors have also been determined and compared to experimental measurements where available. (14)N and (17)O NMR relaxation data for N(2)O in the gas phase and a variety of solvents is reported. The increase in the ratio of (14)N spin-lattice relaxation times in solvent for the central and terminal nitrogens supports previous reports of the modification of the electric field gradients at these nuclei in van der Waals complexes. Ab initio computations for the linear FH···N(2)O complex confirm the large change in EFGs imposed by a single perturber.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry ASame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207