Elucidating the hard/soft acid/base principle: A perspective based on half-reactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comprehensive analysis is presented for the acid-base double-exchange reaction as well as the associated acid-displacement and base-displacement "half-reactions" with the goal of elucidating the meaning of the hard/soft acid/base (HSAB) principle and the conditions for its validity. When electron-transfer effects are important and other effects are negligible, the HSAB principle is driven by the surpassing stability of the soft acid/soft base product. When electrostatic effects dominate the reactivity, the HSAB principle is driven by the surpassing stability of the hard acid/hard base product. Because electron-transfer effects favor soft/soft interactions, while electrostatic effects favor hard/hard interactions, acid-base exchange reactions may be used to determine whether a reagent's reactivity is dominated by electron-transfer or by electrostatic effects. Because electron-transfer and electrostatic considerations separately favor the HSAB principle whenever the electronic chemical potentials of the acids and bases involved in the reaction are similar, our analysis provides strong support for the HSAB principle. The electronic chemical potential measures the intrinsic strength of acids and bases.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".