MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006713138 · doi:10.1002/qua.20616

Fuzzy fragment selection strategies, basis set dependence and HF–DFT comparisons in the applications of the ADMA method of macromolecular quantum chemistry

2005· article· en· W2006713138 on OpenAlex
Zsolt Szekeres, Thomas E. Exner, Paul G. Mezey

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Quantum Chemistry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMolecular spectroscopy and chirality
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDensity matrixQuantum chemistryBasis (linear algebra)ChemistryMacromoleculeBasis setQuantumFragment (logic)Selection (genetic algorithm)MoleculeSet (abstract data type)Matrix (chemical analysis)Statistical physicsComputational chemistryDensity functional theoryAlgorithmMathematicsQuantum mechanicsPhysicsComputer scienceOrganic chemistryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Adjustable Density Matrix Assembler (ADMA) method is examined in this paper. This method approximates (first order) density matrices by taking only those interactions into account which are present between fragments separated by a preset distance parameter ( d ). The accuracy of this approximation is tested using different basis sets, distance parameters and exchange‐correlation functionals. As an illustration of the applications of the method, the electron density of the hemoglobin molecule is presented in its oxy, deoxy and carbon‐monoxy form. © 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.303 · 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