Chemical Bonding in Hypervalent Molecules: Is the Octet Rule Relevant?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bonding in a large number of hypervalent molecules of P, As, S, Se, Te, Cl, and Br with the ligands F, Cl, O, CH(3), and CH(2) has been studied using the topological analysis of the electron localization function ELF. This function partitions the electron density of a molecule into core and valence basins and further classifies valence basins according to the number of core basins with which they have a contact. The number and geometry of these basins is generally in accord with the VSEPR model. The population of each basin can be obtained by integration, and so, the total population of the valence shell of an atom can be obtained as the sum of the populations of all the valence basins which share a boundary with its core basin. It was found that the population of the V(A, X) disynaptic basin corresponding to the bond, where A is the central atom and X the ligand, varies with the electronegativity of the ligand from approximately 2.0 for a weakly electronegative ligand such as CH(3) to less than 1.0 for a ligand such as F. We find that the total population of the valence shell of a hypervalent atom may vary from close to 10 for a period 15 element and close to 12 for a group 16 element to considerably less than 8 for an electronegative ligand such as F. For example, the phosphorus atom in PF(5) has a population of 5.37 electrons in its valence shell, whereas the arsenic atom in AsMe5 has a population of 9.68 electrons in its valence shell. By definition, hypervalent atoms do not obey the Lewis octet rule. They may or may not obey a modified octet rule that has taken the place of the Lewis octet rule in many recent discussions and according to which an atom in a molecule always has fewer than 8 electrons in its valence shell. We show that the bonds in hypervalent molecules are very similar to those in corresponding nonhypervalent (Lewis octet) molecules. They are all polar bonds ranging from weakly to strongly polar depending on the electronegativity of the ligands. The term hypervalent therefore has little significance except to indicate that an atom in a molecule is forming more than four electron pair bonds.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".