Revisiting the definition of local hardness and hardness kernel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An analysis of the hardness kernel and local hardness is performed to propose new definitions for these quantities that follow a similar pattern to the one that characterizes the quantities associated with softness, that is, we have derived new definitions for which the integral of the hardness kernel over the whole space of one of the variables leads to local hardness, and the integral of local hardness over the whole space leads to global hardness. A basic aspect of the present approach is that global hardness keeps its identity as the second derivative of energy with respect to the number of electrons. Local hardness thus obtained depends on the first and second derivatives of energy and electron density with respect to the number of electrons. When these derivatives are approximated by a smooth quadratic interpolation of energy, the expression for local hardness reduces to the one intuitively proposed by Meneses, Tiznado, Contreras and Fuentealba. However, when one combines the first directional derivatives with smooth second derivatives one finds additional terms that allow one to differentiate local hardness for electrophilic attack from the one for nucleophilic attack. Numerical results related to electrophilic attacks on substituted pyridines, substituted benzenes and substituted ethenes are presented to show the overall performance of the new 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".