The analysis of polarization effects on the interelectronic separations in the atoms and molecules of the G1 test set
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We have calculated the differences between kinetic, nuclear attraction, and two‐electron energies as well as the position intracules, P(u) , for 56 molecules and 17 atoms contained in the G1 test set, using basis sets differing in their degree of polarization. The calculations were performed using an unrestricted Hartree–Fock wave function that was expanded using the 6‐31G, 6‐31G(d,p), 6‐31G(3d,3p), 6‐31G(3df,3pd), 6‐311G, 6‐311G(d,p), 6‐311G(3d,3p), 6‐311G(3df,3pd), 6‐311++G, 6‐311++G(d,p), 6‐311++G(3d,3p), and 6‐311++G(3df,3pd) basis sets. In addition to these Pople basis sets, the Dunning's cc‐pVDZ and cc‐pVTZ bases as well as the non‐polarized portions of these basis sets were used. We observe a consistent contraction of electron pairs (as measured by the distribution in P(u) ) as the number of polarization functions is increased beyond zero in molecular systems. This contraction is related to an increase in the electron density in the internuclear bonding regions of molecules as the wave functions are polarized. We note that the increased flexibility in the polarized basis set allows for a more accurate description of the chemical bond and is energetically favorable due to an increased level of attraction to the nuclei (despite the obvious increase in electronic repulsion energy). Because of the increase in electron density in internal regions of the molecule (at the expense of electron density depletions in outer regions), the probability of observing electrons closer together (i.e., at smaller u ) increases due to the relationship between P(u) and its Coulomb component, J(u) . © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".