MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332897585 · doi:10.1021/ja0710095

Ultrahigh-Field Solid-State <sup>59</sup>Co NMR Studies of Co(C<sub>2</sub>B<sub>9</sub>H<sub>11</sub>)<sub>2</sub><sup>-</sup> and Co(C<sub>5</sub>H<sub>5</sub>)<sub>2</sub><sup>+</sup> Salts

2007· article· en· W2332897585 on OpenAlexaff
Kristopher J. Ooms, Victor V. Terskikh, Roderick E. Wasylishen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Chemical Society · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced NMR Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryChemical shiftNMR spectra databaseSpectral lineAnalytical Chemistry (journal)CobaltIonAnisotropyCrystallographyRelaxation (psychology)Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopyNuclear magnetic resonanceStereochemistryPhysical chemistryInorganic chemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cobalt-59 NMR spectra of stationary powder samples of salts containing Co(C 2 B 9 H 11 ) 2 - and Co(C 5 H 5 ) 2 + have been acquired at 21.14 T using single-echo stepped-frequency experiments. The resulting central transition, m I = 1/2 ↔ m I = −1/2, line shapes span more than 2.0 MHz and are dominated by the second-order quadrupolar interaction. Analysis of the spectra leads to C Q values of ca. 163 MHz for both ions, among the largest 59 Co C Q values reported. In addition, 59 Co chemical shift anisotropies are significant for Co(C 2 B 9 H 11 ) 2 - and Co(C 5 H 5 ) 2 +, with values of 4500−4700 and 5650 ppm, respectively. Isotropic 59 Co chemical shifts for the cobalticarborane anion are unavailable from NMR measurements of solution samples, probably because of the extremely short relaxation times anticipated for this complex.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0030.010
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.281 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations29
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Chemical SocietySame topicAdvanced NMR Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207