MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158704933 · doi:10.1039/c2cp40237h

Natural molecular fragments, functional groups, and holographic constraints on electron densities

2012· article· en· W2158704933 on OpenAlexafffund
Paul G. Mezey

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Chemistry Chemical Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsHypersurfaceElectronHolographySet (abstract data type)Statistical physicsElectron densityGroup (periodic table)Fragment (logic)PhysicsComputer scienceMathematicsQuantum mechanicsAlgorithmPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the tools of the shape analysis of molecular electron densities, the Density Threshold Progression Approach used in Shape Group studies can also serve as a criterion for the selection of "natural" molecular fragments, relevant to functional group comparisons, reactivity studies, as well as to the study of levels of relative "autonomy" of various molecular regions. The relevance of these approaches to the fragment-based studies of large molecules, such as biopolymers and nanostructures is emphasized, and the constraints represented by the holographic electron density theorem to this and alternative recent fragment approaches are discussed. The analogies with potential energy hypersurface analysis using the Energy Threshold Progression Approach and connections to level set methods are discussed, and the common features of these seemingly distant problems are described.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations26
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Chemistry Chemical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207