MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1496054794 · doi:10.1063/1.1356019

Coupled-perturbed Hartree–Fock theory for infinite periodic systems: Calculation of static electric properties of (LiH)n, (FH)n, (H2O)n, (–CNH–)n, and (–CH=CH–)n

2001· article· en· W1496054794 on OpenAlexafffund
David M. Bishop, Feng Long Gu, Bernard Kirtman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNonlinear Optical Materials Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHyperpolarizabilityPolarizabilityDipoleMoment (physics)Hartree–Fock methodExtrapolationOligomerChemistryComputational chemistryElectronic correlationMolecular physicsQuantum mechanicsPhysicsMoleculeMathematicsOrganic chemistryMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previously we have shown how to obtain the electric properties of a polymer or other periodic system at the coupled Hartree–Fock level by direct, analytical calculation rather than by extrapolation of oligomer results. Here we add computationally simpler noniterative formulas and test the methodology for the longitudinal dipole moment (μ), polarizability (α), first hyperpolarizability (β), and second hyperpolarizability (γ) of five quasilinear polymers: (LiH)n, (FH)n, (H2O)n, trans-polymethineimine (–CNH–)n, and trans-polyacetylene (–CH=CH–)n. The polymer values are in good agreement with large-oligomer calculations. In this connection the role of phase factors, particularly in determining the dipole moment, is elucidated. We are now in a good position to include electron correlation using methods analogous to those employed for molecular systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations74
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicNonlinear Optical Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207