Further links between the maximum hardness principle and the hard/soft acid/base principle: insights from hard/soft exchange reactions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ayers, Parr, and Pearson recently showed that insight into the hard/soft acid/base (HSAB) principle could be obtained by analyzing the energy of reactions in hard/soft exchange reactions, i.e., reactions in which a soft acid replaces a hard acid or a soft base replaces a hard base [J. Chem. Phys., 2006, 124, 194107]. We show, in accord with the maximum hardness principle, that the hardness increases for favorable hard/soft exchange reactions and decreases when the HSAB principle indicates that hard/soft exchange reactions are unfavorable. This extends the previous work of the authors, which treated only the "double hard/soft exchange" reaction [P. K. Chattaraj and P. W. Ayers, J. Chem. Phys., 2005, 123, 086101]. We also discuss two different approaches to computing the hardness of molecules from the hardness of the composing fragments, and explain how the results differ. In the present context, it seems that the arithmetic mean of fragment softnesses is the preferable definition.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it