MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020278186 · doi:10.1002/chem.200700365

Understanding the Woodward–Hoffmann Rules by Using Changes in Electron Density

2007· article· en· W2020278186 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueChemistry - A European Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicVarious Chemistry Research Topics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPericyclic reactionObservableAtomic orbitalReactivity (psychology)Density functional theoryAromaticityComputational chemistryMolecular orbitalEnvelope (radar)Theoretical physicsChemistryElectronMoleculeStatistical physicsPhysicsQuantum mechanicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Woodward-Hoffmann rules for pericyclic reactions are explained entirely in terms of directly observable physical properties of molecules (specifically changes in electron density) without any recourse to model-dependent concepts, such as orbitals and aromaticity. This results in a fundamental explanation of how the physics of molecular interactions gives rise to the chemistry of pericyclic reactions. This construction removes one of the key outstanding problems in the qualitative density-functional theory of chemical reactivity (the so-called conceptual DFT). One innovation in this paper is that the link between molecular-orbital theory and conceptual DFT is treated very explicitly, revealing how molecular-orbital theory can be used to provide "back-of-the-envelope" approximations to the reactivity indicators of conceptual DFT.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.206 · 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