MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896047187 · doi:10.1002/qua.25797

Temperature‐dependent approach to chemical reactivity concepts in density functional theory

2018· article· en· W2896047187 on OpenAlexafffund
José L. Gázquez, Marco Franco‐Pérez, Paul W. Ayers, Alberto Vela

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Quantum Chemistry · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicFree Radicals and Antioxidants
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersUniversidad Autónoma MetropolitanaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsCompute Canada
KeywordsHelmholtz free energyReactivity (psychology)ThermodynamicsStatistical physicsHeat capacityDensity functional theoryComplement (music)Zero temperatureEntropy (arrow of time)Theoretical physicsAbsolute zeroChemistryPhysicsComputational chemistryQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The chemical reactivity concepts of density functional theory are studied through a unified view in the temperature‐dependent approach provided by the grand canonical ensemble. This procedure leads to a more general perspective that enriches our understanding of the behavior of the average energy and its derivatives with respect to the average number of electrons, provides alternative definitions for those quantities that are “ill defined” at zero temperature, and allows one to determine the relationships among reactivity concepts at any temperature. In particular, it has been found that at high temperatures the parabolic model for reactivity indicators may be justified through the electronic entropy term in the Helmholtz free energy, and that at nonzero temperatures there is an electronic heat capacity contribution to the average energy. In summary, the unified view of the temperature‐dependent approach is an important complement to the zero‐temperature formulation that clarifies fundamental issues therein.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations66
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Quantum ChemistrySame topicFree Radicals and AntioxidantsFrench-language works237,207