Should negative electron affinities be used for evaluating the chemical hardness?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite recent advances in computing negative electron affinities using density-functional theory, it is an open issue as to whether it is appropriate to use negative electron affinities, instead of zero electron affinity, to compute the chemical hardness of atoms and molecules with metastable anions. We seek to answer this question using the accepted empirical rules linking the chemical hardness to the atomic size and the polarizability; we also propose a new correlation with the C6 London dispersion coefficient. For chemical reactivity in the gas phase, it seems to make no difference whether negative, or zero, electron affinities are used for systems with metastable anions. For reactions in solution the evidence that is presently available is insufficient to establish a preference. In addressing this issue, we noted that electron affinity data from which atomic chemical hardness values are computed are out of date; an update to Pearson's classic 1988 table [Inorg. Chem., 1988, 27, 734-740] is thus provided.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it