MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205638235 · doi:10.1002/jcc.26806

Uncovering Clar's aromatic ‐sextet rule in the Hubbard model using Maximum Probability Domain Partitions

2022· article· en· W4205638235 on OpenAlexafffund
Daria Van Hende, Laurent Lemmens, Stijn De Baerdemacker, Dimitri Van Neck, Patrick Bultinck, Guillaume Acke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Chemistry · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersBijzonder Onderzoeksfonds UGentVlaamse regeringUniversiteit GentNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekVlaams Supercomputer Centrum
KeywordsDomain (mathematical analysis)Quantum chemicalStatistical physicsRange (aeronautics)QuantumElectronic structureDominance (genetics)ChemistryMoleculeComputer scienceComputational chemistryPhysicsMathematicsQuantum mechanicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

-sextet rule is a widely used qualitative method for assessing the electronic structure of polycyclic benzenoid hydrocarbons. Unfortunately, many of the quantum chemical concordances for this rule have a limited range of applicability. Here, we show that the fundamental probabilities associated with a distribution of electrons over domain partitions support Clar's rule in both mean-field and static correlation regimes. In particular, domain partitions that maximize those probabilities reflect the dominance of Clar structures in the electronic structure of these molecules. These findings suggest that extending methods that aim to maximize probabilities by deforming domain partitions could lead to novel quantum chemical underpinnings for many chemical concepts.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual · Simulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational ChemistrySame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207