Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".