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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Density-functional thermochemistry. III. The role of exact exchange
Becke, A. D. (1993) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.464913 · Cited by 103,767
Lee, C., Yang, W., & Parr, R. G. (1988) · Physical Review B · doi:10.1103/physrevb.37.785 · Cited by 100,874
Self-Consistent Equations Including Exchange and Correlation Effects
Kohn, W., & Sham, L. J. (1965) · Physical Review · doi:10.1103/physrev.140.a1133 · Cited by 64,135
Cited by
Nucleus-Independent Chemical Shifts (NICS) as an Aromaticity Criterion
Chen, Z., Wannere, C. S., Corminboeuf, C., Puchta, R., & Schleyer, P. V. R. (2005) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr030088+ · Cited by 3,847
Geuenich, D., Hess, K., Köhler, F., & Herges, R. (2005) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr0300901 · Cited by 1,675
Magnetic criteria of aromaticity
Gershoni-Poranne, R., & Stanger, A. (2015) · Chem. Soc. Rev. · doi:10.1039/c5cs00114e · Cited by 494
(2001) · Journal of the Chemical Society, Perkin Transactions 2 · doi:10.1039/b009809o · Cited by 219
Rimmele, M., Nogala, W., Seif-Eddine, M., Roessler, M. M., Heeney, M., Plasser, F., & Glöcklhofer, F. (2021) · Organic Chemistry Frontiers · doi:10.1039/d1qo00901j · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Cheeseman, J. R., Trucks, G. W., Keith, T. A., & Frisch, M. J.
- Venue
- The Journal of Chemical Physics
- Publisher
- AIP Publishing
- 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.