Ab initio charge density analysis of (B<sub>6</sub>C)<sup>2</sup> and B<sub>4</sub>C<sub>3</sub> species How to describe the bonding pattern?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, a detailed topological charge density analysis based on the quantum theory of atoms in molecules (QTAIM) developed by Bader and co-workers, has been accomplished (using the B3LYP method) on the CB62 anion and three planar isomers of the C3B4 species, which had been first proposed by Exner and Schleyer as examples of molecules containing hexacoordinate carbon atoms. The analysis uncovers the strong (covalent) interactions of boron atoms as well as the "nondirectional" interaction of central carbon atom with those peripheral atoms. On the other hand, instabilities have been found in the topological networks of (B6C)2 and B4C3(para) species. A detailed investigation of these instabilities demonstrates that the topology of charge density has a floppy nature near the equilibrium geometries of the species under study. Thus, these species seems to be best described as complexes of a relatively concrete ring containing boron or carbon atoms and a central carbon atom that is confined in the plane of the molecule, but with nondirectional interactions with the surrounding atoms.Key words: hypervalency, hexacoordinate carbon, quantum theory of atoms in molecules, charge density analysis, ab initio methods.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".