MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897782504 · doi:10.1021/acs.jpca.8b08548

Theoretical Descriptors of Electrides

2018· article· en· W2897782504 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephen G. Dale, Erin R. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry A · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAmmonia Synthesis and Nitrogen Reduction
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsElectronIonic bondingChemical physicsDensity functional theoryElectron localization functionElectron densityMaterials scienceStoichiometryChemistryComputational chemistryIonPhysical chemistryPhysicsQuantum mechanicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrides are ionic substances in which the anionic species is stoichiometrically replaced with localized electrons that reside within crystal voids. Originally discovered in 1983, the past decade has seen a sharp rise in the number of known electride materials, most notably the isolation of the first air- and water-stable electride. As the presence of localized interstitial electrons cannot be directly detected experimentally, researchers have turned to density-functional theory (DFT) to discover new electrides. In this work, we survey eight common theoretical descriptors of electrides for their efficacy in identifying these materials. Illustrative examples are presented for all classes of electrides: organic, inorganic, 2D, elemental, and molecular electrides. In general, density-based descriptors such as the electron localization function (ELF) and localized-orbital locator (LOL) are shown to be the most consistently reliable. Limitations of DFT treatments of electrides are also discussed.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations78
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry ASame topicAmmonia Synthesis and Nitrogen ReductionFrench-language works237,207