MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097284261 · doi:10.21577/0100-4042.20170660

ORBITALS IN GENERAL CHEMISTRY, PART III: CONSEQUENCES FOR TEACHING

2020· article· en· W3097284261 on OpenAlex
Guy Lamoureux, J. F. Ogilvie

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueQuímica Nova · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicHistory and advancements in chemistry
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersUniversidad de Costa Rica
KeywordsAtomic orbitalMolecular orbital theorySlater-type orbitalMolecular orbitalSet (abstract data type)Basis setContext (archaeology)ChemistryComputer scienceComputational chemistryTheoretical physicsPhysicsQuantum mechanicsMoleculeOrganic chemistryHistoryDensity functional theoryElectron

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Part III of this series, we undertake a critique of the nature of application of orbitals to describe or to explain the structure and the binding within molecules and materials. Teaching orbitals in introductory chemistry presents five dilemmas that cannot be easily resolved. We thus conclude, based on mathematical realties, that orbitals are not essential until advanced courses. Even in advanced courses, we question the traditional choice of presenting an inadequate set of orbitals. When one recognizes, in a context of general chemistry, the irrelevance of orbitals as algebraic formulae to the observable properties and reactions of chemical substances, one can readily proceed to teach appropriate content effectively without invoking orbitals or analogous entities, based on our actual experience in teaching general chemistry over the years.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.424
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.253 · 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