MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998138012 · doi:10.1002/qua.20444

Moments of the electron momentum density: Requirements for ab initio and density functional theory calculations

2005· article· en· W1998138012 on OpenAlexaff
J. R. Hart, Ajit J. Thakkar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Quantum Chemistry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersTehran University of Medical Sciences and Health Services
KeywordsCoupled clusterElectronic correlationDensity functional theoryAb initioPerturbation theory (quantum mechanics)GaussianBasis (linear algebra)ElectronPhysicsQuantum mechanicsAtomic physicsStatistical physicsComputational chemistryChemistryMoleculeMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Moments of the electron momentum density are calculated for 68 closed‐shell molecules in their ground states and equilibrium geometries. The computations are made with the Hartree–Fock (HF), Møller–Plesset (MP) perturbation theory, coupled cluster, and six density functional theory (DFT) methods, using a number of basis sets of contracted Gaussian‐type functions. Guidelines for the choice of basis sets for these properties are given. Electron correlation effects are found to be less than 8% and can often be accounted for by the second‐order MP method. DFT methods are found to give relatively poor results, often worse than the HF method. The coupled cluster results should provide a benchmark for future experiments and methodological developments. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Int J Quantum Chem, 2005

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations36
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Quantum ChemistrySame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207