In Silico Design of DNP Polarizing Agents: Can Current Dinitroxides Be Improved?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Numerical calculations of enhancement factors offered by dynamic nuclear polarization in solids under magic angle spinning (DNP‐MAS) were performed to determine the optimal EPR parameters for a dinitroxide polarizing agent. We found that the DNP performance of a biradical is more tolerant to the relative orientation of the two nitroxide moieties than previously thought. Generally, any condition in which the gyy tensor components of both radicals are perpendicular to one another is expected to have near‐optimal DNP performance. Our results highlight the important role of the exchange coupling, which can lessen the sensitivity of DNP performance to the inter‐radical distance, but also lead to lower enhancements when the number of atoms in the linker becomes less than three. Lastly, the calculations showed that the electron T1e value should be near 500 μs to yield optimal performance. Importantly, the newest polarizing agents already feature all of the qualities of the optimal polarizing agent, leaving little room for further improvement. Further research into DNP polarizing agents should then target non‐nitroxide radicals, as well as improvements in sample formulations to advance high‐temperature DNP and limit quenching and reactivity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".