MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002331012 · doi:10.1063/1.1729856

On the importance of the “density per particle” (shape function) in the density functional theory

2004· article· en· W2002331012 on OpenAlexaff
Frank De Proft, Paul W. Ayers, K. D. Sen, Paul Geerlings

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDensity functional theoryElectronRange (aeronautics)Function (biology)Constraint (computer-aided design)Particle (ecology)Fukui functionFunctional derivativeElectron densitySecond derivativeElectron localization functionPhysicsComputational chemistryStatistical physicsChemistryMathematicsMaterials scienceMathematical analysisQuantum mechanicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The central role of the shape function sigma(r) from the density functional theory (DFT), the ratio of the electron density rho(r) and the number of electrons N of the system (density per particle), is investigated. Moreover, its relationship with DFT based reactivity indices is established. In the first part, it is shown that an estimate for the chemical hardness can be obtained from the long range behavior of the shape function and its derivative with respect to the number of electrons at a fixed external potential. Next, the energy of the system is minimized with the constraint that the shape function should integrate to unity; the associated Lagrange multiplier is shown to be related to the electronic chemical potential micro of the system. Finally, the importance of the shape function for both molecular structure, reactivity, and similarity is outlined.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations94
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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