Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,347

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A comparison of models for calculating nuclear magnetic resonance shielding tensors

Cheeseman, James R., Trucks, Gary W., Keith, Todd A., Frisch, Michael J.·1996·The Journal of Chemical Physics

Abstract

The direct (recomputation of two-electron integrals) implementation of the gauge-including atomic orbital (GIAO) and the CSGT (continuous set of gauge transformations) methods for calculating nuclear magnetic shielding tensors at both the Hartree-Fock and density functional levels of theory are presented. Isotropic 13C, 15N, and 17O magnetic shielding constants for several molecules, including taxol (C47H51NO14 using 1032 basis functions) are reported. Shielding tensor components determined using the GIAO and CSGT methods are found to converge to the same value at sufficiently large basis sets; however, GIAO shielding tensor components for atoms other than carbon are found to converge faster with respect to basis set size than those determined using the CSGT method for both Hartree-Fock and DFT. For molecules where electron correlation effects are significant, shielding constants determined using (gradient-corrected) pure DFT or hybrid methods (including a mixture of Hartree-Fock exchange and DFT exchange-correlation) are closer to experiment than those determined at the Hartree-Fock level of theory. For the series of molecules studied here, the RMS error for 13C chemical shifts relative to TMS determined using the B3LYP hybrid functional with the 6-311+G(2d,p) basis is nearly three times smaller than the RMS error for shifts determined using Hartree-Fock at this same basis. Hartree-Fock 13C chemical shifts calculated using the 6-31G* basis set give nearly the same RMS error as compared to experiment as chemical shifts obtained using Hartree-Fock with the bigger 6-311+G(2d,p) basis set for the range of molecules studied here. The RMS error for chemical shifts relative to TMS calculated at the Hartree-Fock 6-31G* level of theory for taxol (C47H51NO14) is 6.4 ppm, indicating that for large systems, this level of theory is sufficient to determine accurate 13C chemical shifts.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1063/1.471789

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 2,347

Metadata

Authors
Cheeseman, J. R., Trucks, G. W., Keith, T. A., & Frisch, M. J.
Venue
The Journal of Chemical Physics
Published
1996-04-08
Volume
104
Issue
14
Pages
5497-5509
ISSN
  • 0021-9606 (ISSN-L)
  • 1089-7690
OpenAlex
W2084619794
Cited by
2,347
References
3
FWCI
32.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A comparison of models for calculating nuclear magnetic resonance shielding tensors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1063/1.471789
The paper
Cheeseman, J. R., Trucks, G. W., Keith, T. A., & Frisch, M. J. (1996). A comparison of models for calculating nuclear magnetic resonance shielding tensors. The Journal of Chemical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.471789

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.