Measuring correlated electron motion in atoms with the momentum-balance density
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three new measures of relative electron motion are introduced: equimomentum, antimomentum, and momentum-balance. The equimomentum is the probability that two electrons have the exact same momentum, whereas the antimomentum is the probability that their momenta are the exact opposite. Momentum-balance (MB) is the difference between the equimomentum and antimomentum and, therefore, indicates if equal or opposite momentum is more probable in a system of electrons. The equimomentum, antimomentum, and MB densities are also introduced, which are the local contribution to each quantity. The MB and MB density of the extrapolated-full configuration interaction wave functions of atoms of the first three rows of the periodic table are analyzed, with a particular focus on contrasting the correlated motion of electrons with opposite-spin and parallel-spin. Coulomb correlation between opposite-spin electrons leads to a higher probability of equimomentum, whereas Fermi correlation between parallel-spin electrons leads to a higher probability of antimomentum. The local contribution to MB, given an electron is present, is a minimum at the nucleus and generally increases as the distance from the nucleus increases. There are also interesting similarities between the effects of Fermi correlation and Coulomb correlation (of opposite-spin electrons) on MB.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".