MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613069762 · doi:10.1002/jcc.24817

An alternative to the “Star Path” enhancement of the ADMA linear scaling method for protein modeling

2017· article· en· W2613069762 on OpenAlexaff
Paul G. Mezey, Zoltán Antal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Chemistry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtrapolationPath (computing)ScalingMatrix (chemical analysis)InverseStatistical physicsDensity matrixQuantum chemistryLinear scaleStar (game theory)MacromoleculeAlgorithmChemistryComputer scienceComputational chemistryQuantumApplied mathematicsPhysicsMathematicsQuantum mechanicsMoleculeStatisticsMathematical analysisGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the aim of improving the performance of macromolecular quantum chemistry conformation analysis and reaction path following methods, the Adjustable Density Matrix Assembler (ADMA) method has already been combined with some faster although less accurate density matrix extrapolation methods, such as the Löwdin-Inverse-Löwdin (LIL) extrapolation along a potential energy surface, and a strategically arranged back-and-forth switching between these methods has been proven to be advantageous. Here, an alternative approach is proposed and investigated, based on several actual test calculations, where the "inexpensive" LIL density matrix extrapolation steps are replaced by only somewhat more expensive, but still ADMA-based calculations, where in the "rough-search stage," only interactions of shorter distances within the macromolecule are considered. It is shown that this approach is viable, as an alternative to the "Star Path" method including both ADMA and LIL steps. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational ChemistrySame topicProtein Structure and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207