Toward a definition of valence as a quantity (IUPAC Technical Report)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Valence has a rich history in chemistry, as a bonding concept, in terms of quantitative context, and as a true quantity. In the latter, a survey preceding this project revealed differing perceptions of valence values and helped formulate candidate definitions. This IUPAC task group evaluated nine quantities behind eight alternative definitions on 39 chemical entities of 48 bonding formulas, each giving a set of meaningful values with mutual relationships. Given the reflection principle of IUPAC normative work, 15 comparative examples with high variation of these alternative valences for an element were selected, and chemistry articles in English searched for valence-termed quantities of the compared compounds to imply the definition behind the stated valence value, the frequency of such use, and the chemistry field. Summarized preferences for the alternative definitions show two main areas of use. Organic and physical chemists count valence as a number of two-electron bonds at the atom. Inorganic chemists working with semi-metallic and metallic elements use n -valent as an adjective for oxidation state. The diverse yet infrequent use cannot be covered by a single definition of the valence quantity. Clarity in articles that use valence as a quantity is essential and achievable by stating the intended context.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".