MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112753676 · doi:10.1139/v09-004

On the relationship between free energy difference calculations by thermodynamic integration and harmonic frequency analysis

2009· article· en· W2112753676 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jason Jechow, Tom Ziegler

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHelmholtz free energyThermodynamic integrationChemistryReaction coordinateThermodynamicsEnergy (signal processing)Statistical mechanicsHarmonicStatistical energy analysisComputational chemistryStatistical physicsMolecular dynamicsQuantum mechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Harmonic frequency analysis (HFA), based on statistical mechanics, is a widely used and powerful tool for evaluating free energy changes between molecular states. It has, as such, been employed extensively to evaluate the free energy of reaction and activation for chemical processes. Alternatively, free energy differences can be calculated using thermodynamic integration (TI). In TI, the force on a constrained reaction coordinate is calculated, and this force from a to b is integrated to obtain the Helmholtz free energy change ΔA ab . Although HFA and TI clearly are related from a fundamental statistical mechanics point-of-view, the relationship is not immediately obvious when one considers the quite different procedures applied in the two methods. This article provides a detailed analysis and proof of the relation between HFA and TI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical StudiesFrench-language works237,207