MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996730574 · doi:10.1063/1.3177061

Oscillations in meta-generalized-gradient approximation potential energy surfaces for dispersion-bound complexes

2009· article· en· W1996730574 on OpenAlexafffund
Erin R. Johnson, Axel D. Becke, C. David Sherrill, Gino A. DiLabio

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsNational Institute for NanotechnologyDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSaddle pointSpurious relationshipDispersion (optics)Dimensionless quantityKinetic energyDensity gradientPhysicsDensity functional theorySensitivity (control systems)SaddleGridQuantum mechanicsMathematicsGeometryMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Meta-generalized-gradient approximations (meta-GGAs) in density-functional theory are exchange-correlation functionals whose integrands depend on local density, density gradient, and also the kinetic-energy density. It has been pointed out by Johnson et al. [Chem. Phys. Lett. 394, 334 (2004)] that meta-GGA potential energy curves in dispersion-bound complexes are susceptible to spurious oscillations unless very large integration grids are used. This grid sensitivity originates from the saddle-point region of the density near the intermonomer midpoint. Various dimensionless ratios involving the kinetic-energy density, found in typical meta-GGAs, may be ill-behaved in this region. Grid sensitivity thus arises if the midpoint region is sampled by too sparse a grid. For most meta-GGAs, standard grids do not suffice. Care must be taken to avoid this problem when using, or constructing, meta-GGAs.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations178
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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