Gilbert N. Lewis and the chemical bond: The electron pair and the octet rule from 1916 to the present day
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe the development of Lewis's ideas concerning the chemical bond and in particular the concept of the electron pair bond and the octet rule. We show that the concept of the electron pair bond has endured to the present day and is now understood to be a consequence of the Pauli principle. In contrast the octet rule is now regarded as much less important than was originally generally believed, although Lewis himself knew several exceptions and regarded it as less important than what he called the rule of two (the electron pair). The octet rule was more strongly promoted by Langmuir who is also responsible for the term covalent bond. However, many more exceptions to the octet rules than were known to Lewis are now known and the terms hypervalent and hypovalent used to describe such molecules are no longer particularly useful. Today it is realized that bonding electron pairs in many molecules are not as well localized as Lewis believed, nevertheless resonance structures, i.e., plausible alternative Lewis structures, are still often used to describe such molecules. Moreover electrons are not always found in pairs, as for example in linear molecules, which can, however, be satisfactorily described by Linnett's double quartet theory. The electron density distribution in a molecule can now be analyzed using the ELF and other functions of the electron density to show where electron pairs are most probably to be found in a molecule.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".