Thermodynamic hardness and the maximum hardness principle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An alternative definition of hardness (called the thermodynamic hardness) within the grand canonical ensemble formalism is proposed in terms of the partial derivative of the electronic chemical potential with respect to the thermodynamic chemical potential of the reservoir, keeping the temperature and the external potential constant. This temperature dependent definition may be interpreted as a measure of the propensity of a system to go through a charge transfer process when it interacts with other species, and thus it keeps the philosophy of the original definition. When the derivative is expressed in terms of the three-state ensemble model, in the regime of low temperatures and up to temperatures of chemical interest, one finds that for zero fractional charge, the thermodynamic hardness is proportional to T−1(I−A), where I is the first ionization potential, A is the electron affinity, and T is the temperature. However, the thermodynamic hardness is nearly zero when the fractional charge is different from zero. Thus, through the present definition, one avoids the presence of the Dirac delta function. We show that the chemical hardness defined in this way provides meaningful and discernible information about the hardness properties of a chemical species exhibiting integer or a fractional average number of electrons, and this analysis allowed us to establish a link between the maximum possible value of the hardness here defined, with the minimum softness principle, showing that both principles are related to minimum fractional charge and maximum stability conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".