Measuring multiple<sup>17</sup>O–<sup>13</sup>C<i>J</i>-couplings in naphthalaldehydic acid: a combined solid state NMR and density functional theory approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A combined multinuclear solid state NMR and gauge included projected augmented wave, density functional theory (GIPAW DFT) computational approach is evaluated to determine the four heteronuclear 1J(13C,17O) couplings in solid 17O enriched naphthalaldehydic acid. Direct multi-field 17O magic angle spinning (MAS), triple quantum MAS (3QMAS) and double rotation (DOR) experiments are initially utilised to evaluate the accuracy of the DFT approximations used in the calculation of the isotropic chemical shifts (δiso), quadrupole coupling constants (CQ) and asymmetry (ηQ) parameters. These combined approaches give δiso values of 313, 200 and 66 ppm for the carbonyl (C[double bond, length as m-dash]O), ether (-O-) and hydroxyl (-OH) environments, respectively, with the corresponding measured quadrupole products (PQ) being 8.2, 9.0 and 10.6 MHz. The geometry optimised DFT structure derived using the CASTEP code gives firm agreement with the shifts observed for the ether (δiso = 223, PQ = 9.4 MHz) and hydroxyl (δiso = 62, PQ = 10.5 MHz) environments but the unoptimised experimental XRD structure has better agreement for the carbonyl group (δiso = 320, PQ = 8.3 MHz). The determined δiso and ηQ values are shown to be consistent with bond lengths closer to 1.222 Å (experimental length) rather than the geometry optimised length of 1.238 Å. The geometry optimised DFT 1J(13C,17O) coupling to the hydroxyl is calculated as 20 Hz and the couplings to the ether were calculated to be 37 (O-C[double bond, length as m-dash]O) and 32 (O-C-OH) Hz. The scalar coupling parameters for the unoptimised experimental carbonyl group predict a 1J(13C,17O) value of 28 Hz, whilst optimisation gives a value of 27 Hz. These calculated 1J(13C,17O) couplings, together with estimations of the probability of each O environment being isotopically labelled (determined by electrospray ionisation mass spectrometry) and the measured refocussable transverse dephasing (T2') behaviour, are combined to simulate the experimental decay behaviour. Good agreement between the measured and calculated decay behaviour is observed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".