Search for suitable approximation methods for fullerene structure and relative stability studies: Case study with C50
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Local density approximation (LDA), several popular general gradient approximation (GGA), hybrid module based density functional theoretical methods: SVWN, BLYP, PBE, HCTH, B3LYP, PBE1PBE, B1LYP, and BHandHLYP, and some nonstandard hybrid methods are applied in geometry prediction for C60 and C70. HCTH with 3-21G basis set is found to be one of the best methods for fullerene structural prediction. In the predictions of relative stability of C50 isomers, PM3 is an efficient method in the first step for sorting out the most stable isomers. HCTH with 3-21G predicts very good geometries for C50, similar to the performance of B3LYP6-31G(d). The gap between the highest occupied molecular orbital and the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital from the predictions of all the density functional theory methods has the following descending order: E(gap)(half-and-half hybrid)>E(gap)(B3LYP)>E(gap)(HCTH)(GGA)>E(gap)(SVWN)(LDA).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".