MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034465848 · doi:10.1063/1.1949201

A post-Hartree–Fock model of intermolecular interactions

2005· article· en· W2034465848 on OpenAlexaff
Erin R. Johnson, Axel D. Becke

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntermolecular forceDipoleChemistryIsotropyDispersion (optics)Hartree–Fock methodAtomic orbitalMoment (physics)Density functional theoryMolecular physicsAtomic physicsComputational chemistryStatistical physicsPhysicsQuantum mechanicsElectronMolecule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intermolecular interactions are of great importance in chemistry but are difficult to model accurately with computational methods. In particular, Hartree-Fock and standard density-functional approximations do not include the physics necessary to properly describe dispersion. These methods are sometimes corrected to account for dispersion by adding a pairwise C6R6 term, with C6 dispersion coefficients dependent on the atoms involved. We present a post-Hartree-Fock model in which C6 coefficients are generated by the instantaneous dipole moment of the exchange hole. This model relies on occupied orbitals only, and involves only one, universal, empirical parameter to limit the dispersion energy at small interatomic separations. The model is extensively tested on isotropic C6 coefficients of 178 intermolecular pairs. It is also applied to the calculation of the geometries and binding energies of 20 intermolecular complexes involving dispersion, dipole-induced dipole, dipole-dipole, and hydrogen-bonding interactions, with remarkably good results.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0050.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations1,010
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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