MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007698561 · doi:10.1063/1.3499316

A simultaneous probability density for the intracule and extracule coordinates

2010· article· en· W2007698561 on OpenAlexafffund
Adam J. Proud, Jason K. Pearson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Molecular Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRADIUSCenter (category theory)PhysicsElectronWave functionCoulombPosition (finance)Electron densityQuantum mechanicsIsomorphism (crystallography)Atomic physicsChemistryCrystallography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce the intex density X(R,u), which combines both the intracular and extracular coordinates to yield a simultaneous probability density for the position of the center-of-mass radius (R) and relative separation (u) of electron pairs. One of the principle applications of the intex density is to investigate the origin of the recently observed secondary Coulomb hole. The Hartree-Fock (HF) intex densities for the helium atom and heliumlike ions are symmetric functions that may be used to prove the isomorphism 2I(2R)=E(R), where I(u) is the intracule density and E(R) is the extracule density. This is not true of the densities that we have constructed from explicitly correlated wave functions. The difference between these asymmetric functions and their symmetric HF counterparts produces a topologically rich intex correlation hole. From the intex hole distributions (X(exact)(R,u)-X(HF)(R,u)), we conclude that the probability of observing an electron pair with a very large interelectronic separation increases with the inclusion of correlation only when their center-of-mass radius is close to half of their separation.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicAtomic and Molecular PhysicsFrench-language works237,207