On the Balance of Simplification and Reality in Molecular Modeling of the Electron Density
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fused-sphere (van der Waals) surfaces and their variants such as solvent accessible surfaces and molecular surfaces are simple molecular models that are commonly used for many diverse purposes across a broad range of scientific disciplines due to their low computational resource demands. Fused-sphere models require atomic radii to be defined. Many different atomic radii have been proposed, with each set of radii being applicable to a relatively limited scope of molecular types or situations. The large number of differing radii sets actually serves to emphasize the simplicity of the model and its inability to accurately represent the reality of the molecule: its electron density. By measuring the similarity of fused-sphere, fuzzy fused-sphere, and calculated electron density representations of a set of small molecules via symmetric volume differences and the shape group method, it can be seen that fused-sphere models are very poor at representing the real electronic charge distribution of small molecules, especially where π bond systems, lone pair electrons, and aromatic rings are involved. Larger molecules, conceivably, will be even more poorly represented. With advances in computational power and modeling techniques to arrive at high-quality calculated electron density representations for large molecules already in existence, abandoning the use of fused-sphere models should be considered for many applications.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".