MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769413748 · doi:10.1002/jcc.25114

A reference‐free stockholder partitioning method based on the force on electrons

2017· article· en· W2769413748 on OpenAlexafffund
Stijn Fias, Farnaz Heidar‐Zadeh, James S. M. Anderson, Paul W. Ayers, Robert G. Parr

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Chemistry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceEuropean Commission
KeywordsAtoms in moleculesElectronProperty (philosophy)Atomic nucleusMoleculeElectron densityDegenerate energy levelsStatistical physicsAtom (system on chip)PhysicsAtomic physicsQuantum mechanicsChemistryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational ChemistrySame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207