Is there any fundamental difference between ionic, covalent, and others types of bond? A canonical perspective on the question
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of chemical bonding is normally presented and simplified through two models: the covalent bond and the ionic bond. Expansion of the ideal covalent and ionic models leads chemists to the concepts of electronegativity and polarizability, and thus to the classification of polar and non-polar bonds. In addition, the intermolecular interactions are normally viewed as physical phenomena without direct correlation to the chemical bond in any simplistic model. Contrary to these traditional concepts of chemical bonding, recently developed canonical approaches demonstrate a unified perspective on the nature of binding in pairwise interatomic interactions. This new canonical model, which is a force-based approach with a basis in fundamental molecular quantum mechanics, confirms much earlier assertions that in fact there are no fundamental distinctions among covalent bonds, ionic bonds, and intermolecular interactions including the hydrogen bond, the halogen bond, and van der Waals interactions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".