Can simple ‘molecular’ corrections outperform projector augmented‐wave density functional theory in the prediction of <sup>35</sup> Cl electric field gradient tensor parameters for chlorine‐containing crystalline systems?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many‐body expansion (MBE) fragment approaches have been applied to accurately compute nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) parameters in crystalline systems. Recent examples demonstrate that electric field gradient (EFG) tensor parameters can be accurately calculated for 14 N and 17 O. A key additional development is the simple molecular correction (SMC) approach, which uses two one‐body fragment (i.e., isolated molecule) calculations to adjust NMR parameter values established using ‘benchmark’ projector augmented‐wave (PAW) density functional theory (DFT) values. Here, we apply a SMC using the hybrid PBE0 exchange‐correlation (XC) functional to see if this can improve the accuracy of calculated 35 Cl EFG tensor parameters. We selected eight organic and two inorganic crystal structures and considered 15 chlorine sites. We find that this SMC improves the accuracy of computed values for both the 35 Cl quadrupolar coupling constant ( C Q ) and the asymmetry parameter ( ) by approximately 30% compared with benchmark PAW DFT values. We also assessed a SMC that offers local improvements not only in terms of the quality of the XC functional but simultaneously in the quality of the description of relativistic effects via the inclusion of spin–orbit effects. As the inorganic systems considered contain heavy atoms bonded to the chlorine atoms, we find further improvements in the accuracy of calculated 35 Cl EFG tensor parameters when both a hybrid functional and spin–orbit effects are included in the SMC. On the contrary, for chlorine‐containing organics, the inclusion of spin–orbit relativistic effects using a SMC does not improve the accuracy of computed 35 Cl EFG tensor parameters.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".