MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068465600 · doi:10.1021/jm070549+

Predicting Small-Molecule Solvation Free Energies: An Informal Blind Test for Computational Chemistry

2008· article· en· W2068465600 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medicinal Chemistry · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolvationChemistryComputational chemistryMoleculeOutlierTest setSet (abstract data type)Solvent effectsImplicit solvationStatistical physicsSolventApplied mathematicsThermodynamicsStatisticsOrganic chemistryComputer scienceMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experimental data on the transfer of small molecules between vacuum and water are relatively sparse. This makes it difficult to assess whether computational methods are truly predictive of this important quantity or merely good at explaining what has been seen. To explore this, a prospective test was performed of two different methods for estimating solvation free energies: an implicit solvent approach based on the Poisson-Boltzmann equation and an explicit solvent approach using alchemical free energy calculations. For a set of 17 small molecules, root mean square errors from experiment were between 1.3 and 2.6 kcal/mol, with the explicit solvent free energy approach yielding somewhat greater accuracy but at greater computational expense. Insights from outliers and suggestions for future prospective challenges of this kind are presented.

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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.245 · 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