MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592597664

The measurement of residual dipolar coupling between quadrupolar nuclei in double-rotation NMR

2011· article· en· W2592597664 on OpenAlexaff
Frédéric A. Perras, David L. Bryce

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced NMR Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeteronuclear moleculeResidual dipolar couplingChemistryMagnetic dipole–dipole interactionDipoleNuclear magnetic resonanceMolecular physicsCoupling constantMagic angleSpin (aerodynamics)Magic angle spinningResonance (particle physics)Atomic physicsCoupling (piping)Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopyPhysicsMaterials science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measuring internuclear distances using dipolar coupling constants (RDD) is a particular challenge in the case of heteronuclear quadrupolar spin pairs. When the quadrupolar interaction is too large, the entire spectrum cannot be excited in a single piece and double resonance methods cannot be used. A second possibility is to use residual dipolar coupling (RDC) to extract RDD as RDCs are amplified when the quadrupolar interaction increases. RDCs are often seen in the magic angle spinning (MAS) NMR spectra of spin-1/2 nuclei that are dipolar coupled to a quadrupolar nucleus although they are more elusive in the case of quadrupolar spin pairs because the quadrupolar interaction typically dwarves all other interactions. In order to resolve these RDCs and measure RDDs it is advantageous to remove the second-order quadrupolar broadening using a high-resolution method such as doublerotation (DOR).

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)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced NMR Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207