An assessment of pure, hybrid, meta, and hybrid‐meta GGA density functional theory methods for open‐shell systems: The case of the nonheme iron enzyme 8R–LOX
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of a range density functional theory functionals combined in a quantum mechanical (QM)/molecular mechanical (MM) approach was investigated in their ability to reliably provide geometries, electronic distributions, and relative energies of a multicentered open-shell mechanistic intermediate in the mechanism 8R-Lipoxygenase. With the use of large QM/MM active site chemical models, the smallest average differences in geometries between the catalytically relevant quartet and sextet complexes were obtained with the B3LYP(*) functional. Moreover, in the case of the relative energies between (4) II and (6) II, the use of the B3LYP(*) functional provided a difference of 0.0 kcal mol(-1). However, B3LYP(±) and B3LYP also predicted differences in energies of less than 1 kcal mol(-1). In the case of describing the electronic distribution (i.e., spin density), the B3LYP(*), B3LYP, or M06-L functionals appeared to be the most suitable. Overall, the results obtained suggest that for systems with multiple centers having unpaired electrons, the B3LYP(*) appears most well rounded to provide reliable geometries, electronic structures, and relative energies.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".