MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018850979 · doi:10.1063/1.3478530

Model core potentials of p-block elements generated considering the Douglas–Kroll relativistic effects, suitable for accurate spin-orbit coupling calculations

2010· article· en· W2018850979 on OpenAlexaff
Tao Zeng, Dmitri G. Fedorov, Mariusz Kłobukowski

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelativistic quantum chemistryCationic polymerizationValence (chemistry)Spin–orbit interactionIonic bondingAtomic physicsChemistryScalar (mathematics)Coupling (piping)PhysicsComputational chemistryIonMaterials scienceQuantum mechanicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Model core potentials with scalar-relativistic effect at the third order Douglas-Kroll level combined with the first-order Douglas-Kroll for spin-orbit coupling are developed for the 25 p-block elements, B-Tl, with the valence space starting at (n-1)p(n-1)d, except group 13, where (n-1)s is also included because its importance was clearly demonstrated for Tl. All of the comparisons between model core potential and all-electron calculations of atomic and ionic term and level energies and the spectroscopic constants of monohydrides and cationic dimers indicate the chemical accuracy of our new potentials in reproducing all-electron properties. The applications of the new potentials to the cationic dimers show that polyatomic calculations with model core potential atoms are accurate. The periodic trends in the spectroscopic properties of cationic dimers and hydrides are discussed. The timing study demonstrates the extent of the computational savings. These new sets of model core potentials and basis sets, which we call ZFKn-DK3, have been implemented in the the widely used quantum chemistry program package GAMESS-U.S.

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 score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations21
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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