MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1635942519 · doi:10.1063/1.1305322

Direct iterative solution of the generalized Bloch equation. III. Application to H2-cluster models

2000· article· en· W1635942519 on OpenAlexaff
Holger Meißner, Josef Paldus

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversität Regensburg
KeywordsAnsatzCoupled clusterDegenerate energy levelsOperator (biology)Quadratic equationExponential functionDissociation (chemistry)MathematicsQuantum mechanicsPhysicsApplied mathematicsStatistical physicsChemistryMoleculeMathematical analysisPhysical chemistryGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A state-selective multiconfigurational single-reference method that was outlined in the preceding paper of this series (H. Meißner and J. Paldus, J. Chem. Phys. 113, 2594 (2000); preceding paper), and is based on a quadratic iterative algorithm enabling the direct solution of the generalized Bloch equation, is applied to several model systems consisting of interacting hydrogen molecules, nowadays referred to as the H4, S4, and H8 models. These exactly solvable models are often used to test the efficacy of post-Hartree–Fock methods in their ability to recover both the dynamic and nondynamic correlation energies, since they enable a continuous variation of the degree of quasidegeneracy from the degenerate to nondegenerate limit by varying a single geometrical parameter, while simulating the dissociation of one or more single bonds. Various approximation schemes that were outlined in Part II, as well as their combinations, are tested and their performance evaluated. The size-extensivity deviations of those approximations that do not rely on the exponential cluster ansatz for the wave operator are also examined using larger hydrogen molecule clusters. It is shown that the so-called BQ4 approximation performs extremely well in all cases and even outperforms the externally corrected, reduced multireference (RMR) CCSD in the quasidegenerate region of geometries.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations16
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207