A reference‐free stockholder partitioning method based on the force on electrons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We argue that when one divides a molecular property into atom-in-a-molecule contributions, one should perform the division based on the property density of the quantity being partitioned. This is opposition to the normal approach, where the electron density is given a privileged role in defining the properties of atoms-in-a-molecule. Because partitioning each molecular property based on its own property density is inconvenient, we design a reference-free approach that does not (directly) refer atomic property densities. Specifically, we propose a stockholder partitioning method based on relative influence of a molecule's atomic nuclei on the electrons at a given point in space. The resulting method does not depend on an "arbitrary" choice of reference atoms and it has some favorable properties, including the fact that all of the electron density at an atomic nucleus is assigned to that nucleus and the fact all the atoms in a molecule decay at a uniform asymptotic rate. Unfortunately, the resulting model is not easily applied to spatially degenerate ground states. Furthermore, the practical realizations of this strategy that we tried here gave disappointing numerical results. © 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".