Solid‐state nuclear magnetic resonance and nuclear quadrupole resonance as complementary tools to study quadrupolar nuclei in solids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Solid‐state nuclear magnetic resonance (SSNMR) spectroscopy has largely overtaken nuclear quadrupole resonance (NQR) spectroscopy for the study of quadrupolar nuclei. In addition to information on the electric field gradient, SSNMR spectra may offer additional information concerning other NMR interactions such as magnetic shielding. With continued technological advances contributing to developments such as higher magnetic fields, SSNMR boasts several practical advantages over NQR. However, NQR is still a relevant technique, as it may often be the most practical approach in cases of extremely large quadrupolar coupling constants. Here, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of SSNMR and NQR spectroscopies, with the quadrupolar halogens serving as examples. The purpose of this article is to serve as a guide on using SSNMR and NQR as complementary tools, covering some of their practicalities, limitations, and experimental challenges.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".