Quantum Alchemy Based Bonding Trends and Their Link to Hammett’s Equation and Pauling’s Electronegativity Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present an intuitive and general analytical approximation estimating the energy of covalent single and double bonds between participating atoms in terms of their respective nuclear charges with just three parameters, [ E AB ≈ a – bZ A Z B + c ( Z A 7/3 + Z B 7/3 ) ]. The functional form of our expression models an alchemical atomic energy decomposition between participating atoms A and B. After calibration, reasonably accurate bond dissociation energy estimates are obtained for hydrogen-saturated diatomics composed of p-block elements coming from the same row 2 ≤ n ≤ 4 in the periodic table. Corresponding changes in bond dissociation energies due to substitution of atom B by C can be obtained via simple formulas. While being of different functional form and origin, our model is as simple and accurate as Pauling’s well-known electronegativity model. Analysis indicates that the model’s response in covalent bonding to variation in nuclear charge is near-linear, which is consistent with Hammett’s equation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".