Bibliographic record
Abstract
The leading-order (i.e., dipole-dipole) dispersion energy is calculated for one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) infinite lattices, and an infinite 1D array of infinitely long lines, of doubly occupied locally harmonic wells. The dispersion energy is decomposed into pairwise and non-pairwise additive components. By varying the force constant and separation of the wells, the non-pairwise additive contribution to the dispersion energy is shown to depend on the overlap of density between neighboring wells. As well separation is increased, the non-pairwise additivity of the dispersion energy decays. The different rates of decay for 1D and 2D lattices of wells is explained in terms of a Jacobian effect that influences the number of nearest neighbors. For an array of infinitely long lines of wells spaced 5 bohrs apart, and an inter-well spacing of 3 bohrs within a line, the non-pairwise additive component of the leading-order dispersion energy is -0.11 kJ mol(-1) well(-1), which is 7% of the total. The polarizability of the wells and the density overlap between them are small in comparison to that of the atomic densities that arise from the molecular density partitioning used in post-density-functional theory (DFT) damped dispersion corrections, or DFT-D methods. Therefore, the nonadditivity of the leading-order dispersion observed here is a conservative estimate of that in molecular clusters.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".