MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1556075734 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1009.0889

On the classical theory of molecular optical activity

2010· preprint· en· W1556075734 on OpenAlexaff
Alexei M. Frolovand, David M. Wardlaw

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2010
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicVarious Chemistry Research Topics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptical rotationCircular dichroismPhysicsRaman optical activityScalar (mathematics)Tensor (intrinsic definition)WavelengthQuantum mechanicsMoleculeChemistryClassical mechanicsOpticsMathematicsCrystallographyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The basic principles of classical and semi-classical theories of molecular optical activity are discussed. These theories are valid for dilute solutions of optically active organic molecules. It is shown that all phenomena known in the classical theory of molecular optical activity can be described with the use of one pseudo-scalar which is a uniform function of the incident light frequency $ω$. The relation between optical rotation and circular dichroism is derived from the basic Kramers-Kronig relations. In our discussion of the general theory of molecular optical activity we introduce the tensor of molecular optical activity. It is shown that to evaluate the optical rotation and circular dichroism at arbitrary frequencies one needs to know only nine (3 + 6) molecular tensors. The quantum (or semi-classical) theory of molecular optical activity is also briefly discussed. We also raise the possibility of measuring the optical rotation and circular dichroism at wavelengths which correspond to the vacuum ultraviolet region, i.e. for $λ\le 150$ $nm$.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.146 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicVarious Chemistry Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207