MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103576805 · doi:10.1063/1.4932594

How well do static electronic dipole polarizabilities from gas-phase experiments compare with density functional and MP2 computations?

2015· article· en· W2103576805 on OpenAlexaff
Ajit J. Thakkar, Taozhe Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDipoleAbsolute deviationError barOutlierPerturbation theory (quantum mechanics)Standard deviationComputationMoleculeDensity functional theoryAtomic physicsPhysicsMolecular physicsMaterials scienceStatistical physicsMathematicsStatisticsQuantum mechanicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Static electronic dipole polarizabilities for 135 molecules are calculated using second-order Møller-Plesset perturbation theory and six density functionals recently recommended for polarizabilities. Comparison is made with the best gas-phase experimental data. The lowest mean absolute percent deviations from the best experimental values for all 135 molecules are 3.03% and 3.08% for the LC-τHCTH and M11 functionals, respectively. Excluding the eight extreme outliers for which the experimental values are almost certainly in error, the mean absolute percent deviation for the remaining 127 molecules drops to 2.42% and 2.48% for the LC-τHCTH and M11 functionals, respectively. Detailed comparison enables us to identify 32 molecules for which the discrepancy between the calculated and experimental values warrants further investigation.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.649
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207