On the applicability of local softness and hardness
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global hardness and softness and the associated hard/soft acid/base (HSAB) principle have been used to explain many experimental observed reactivity patterns and these concepts can be found in textbooks of general, inorganic, and organic chemistry. In addition, local versions of these reactivity indices and principles have been defined to describe the regioselectivity of systems. In a very recent article (Chem.-Eur. J. 2008, 14, 8652), the present authors have shown that the picture of these well-known descriptors is incomplete and that the understanding of these reactivity indices must be "reinterpreted". In fact, the local softness and hardness contain the same "potential information" and they should be interpreted as the "local abundance" or "concentration" of their corresponding global properties. In this contribution, we analyze the implications of this new point of view for the applicability of these well-known descriptors when comparing two sites in three situations: two sites within one molecule, two sites in two different, but noninteracting molecules, and two sites in two different, but interacting, molecules. The implications on the HSAB principle are highlighted, leading to the discussion of the role of the electrostatic interaction.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it