MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243250765 · doi:10.26434/chemrxiv.5388397

Evaluating Force-Field London Dispersion Coefficients Using the Exchange-Hole Dipole Moment Model

2017· preprint· en· W4243250765 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamad Mohebifar, Erin R. Johnson, Christopher N. Rowley

Bibliographic record

VenueChemRxiv · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicChemical Thermodynamics and Molecular Structure
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLondon dispersion forceDipoleForce field (fiction)Dispersion (optics)ChemistryCyclohexanePolarizabilityDensity functional theoryThermodynamicsMoment (physics)VaporizationComputational chemistryMoleculePhysical chemistryPhysicsClassical mechanicsOrganic chemistryOpticsQuantum mechanicsvan der Waals force

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The exchange-hole dipole moment (XDM) model from density-functional theory predicts atomic and molecular London dispersion coefficients from first principles, providing an innovative strategy to validate the dispersion terms of molecular-mechanical force fields. In this work, the XDM model was used to obtain the London dispersion coefficients of 88 organic molecules relevant to biochemistry and pharmaceutical chemistry and the values compared with those derived from the Lennard-Jones parameters of the CGenFF, GAFF, OPLS, and Drude polarizable force fields…..(see full abstract). Finally, XDM-derived dispersion coefficients were used to parameterize molecular-mechanical force fields for five liquids – benzene, toluene, cyclohexane, n-pentane, and n-hexane – which resulted in improved accuracy in the computed enthalpies of vaporization despite only having to evaluate a much smaller section of the parameter space.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.336
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designSimulation 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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemRxivSame topicChemical Thermodynamics and Molecular StructureFrench-language works237,207