MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049896935 · doi:10.1063/1.2918731

Local hardness equalization: Exploiting the ambiguity

2008· article· en· W2049896935 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsAmbiguityFrontierLocal structureMathematicsChemistryComputer scienceChemical physicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the density-functional theory of chemical reactivity, the local hardness is known to be an ambiguous concept. The mathematical structure associated with this problematic situation is elaborated and three common definitions for the local hardness are critically examined: the frontier local hardness [S. K. Ghosh, Chem. Phys. Lett. 172, 77 (1990)], the total local hardness [S. K. Ghosh and M. Berkowitz, J. Chem. Phys. 83, 2976 (1985)], and the unconstrained local hardness [P. W. Ayers and R. G. Parr, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 122, 2010 (2000)]. The frontier local hardness has particularly nice properties: (a) it has smaller norm than most, if not all, other choices of the local hardness and (b) it is "unbiased" in an information-theoretic sense. For the ground electronic state of a molecular system, the frontier local hardness is equal to the global hardness. For an electronic system in its ground state, both the chemical potential and the frontier local hardness are equalized. The frontier local hardness equalization principle provides a computational approach for designing reagents with desirable chemical reactivity profiles.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.236 · 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