Reply to the comment by Amano on “Linear and bent triatomic molecules are <i>not</i> qualitatively different!”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Amano’s comment on Jensen’s paper, we notice two important misconceptions: (i) Amano overlooks the fact that all features special for a linear molecule originate in the double degeneracy in the bending motion (i.e., in the fact that for a linear triatomic molecule, the description of the bending motion must necessarily also involve the rotation about the axis of least moment of inertia, the a axis, which becomes the molecular axis at equilibrium), and (ii) the expectation value generated from the wavefunction gives an “average” value of the relevant observable (coordinate); the expectation value can, in principle, be obtained experimentally as the average of very many repeated measurements of the observable. In our previous papers on this subject, in particular the paper by Jensen discussed here, we have attempted to explain our results as coherently and “pedagogically” as we can, starting with the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics, and we encourage interested readers to refer to our previous works on the subject. Thus, we maintain our assertion that the vibrationally averaged structure of a linear molecule is observed as being bent, as we have demonstrated previously from both theoretical and experimental viewpoints.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.057 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
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".