A performance comparison between the CEP effective core potential/triple-split basis set approach and an all-electron computational method with emphasis on small Ti and V alkoxide complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The structures of 30 neutral and positively charged small clusters were optimized and a number of hypothetical reaction pathways were investigated to compare the performance of the B3LYP/CEP-121G(d) Effective Core Potential/triple-split basis set method (ECP, method 1) and the B3LYP/6-311G(d) approach (method 2) for geometry optimizations. In addition, single point calculations at the B3LYP/CEP-121+G(d,p) (on geometries optimized by method 1) and at the B3LYP/6-311+G(d,p) (on optimized structures from methods 1 and 2) levels were also carried out. The augmented CEP-121G scheme is roughly 1.4 to 2.0 times computationally cheaper than full electron calculations, and is able to reproduce structures, infrared frequencies, thermochemical parameters and dipole moments predicted by the all-electron basis set employed in this study. From a practical viewpoint, the results confirm that ECPs can be used in combination with density functional methods, despite the fact that the former are typically generated via a Hartree-Fock approach.Key words: CEP, Effective Core Potentials, alkoxides, DFT, Ti.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".