MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414757321 · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.5c00849

The Grand Canonical General-Purpose Reactivity Indicator: A Conceptual DFT Approach to Predict Molecular Reactivity and Experimental Electrophilicity and Nucleophilicity Scales

2025· article· en· W4414757321 on OpenAlexafffund
Yoshio Barrera, Tomás Rocha‐Rinza, Florian F. Mulks, Paul W. Ayers, James S. M. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Theory and Computation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicChemical Reaction Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersDirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoRWTH Aachen UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaCanada Research ChairsVerband der Chemischen Industrie
KeywordsElectrophileNucleophileReactivity (psychology)MoleculeGrand canonical ensemble

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide The Grand Canonical General-Purpose Reactivity Indicator (GC-GPRI) is introduced as a tool for predicting reactivity and for discerning the relative electrophilicity and nucleophilicity of electrophiles and nucleophiles, respectively. The GC-GPRI is derived within the zero-temperature grand canonical ensemble conceptual density-functional theory (CDFT) framework using a perturbative approach. In this model, the electrophile–nucleophile interaction energy is modeled by perturbations in the chemical and external potentials of the isolated species. The GC-GPRI accurately identifies the most reactive hard and soft atoms in complex molecules with multiple reactive sites. This model also reproduces experimental electrophilicity and nucleophilicity scales for 21 electrophiles and 20 nucleophiles, with R 2 correlations of 0.98 and 0.94, respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical Theory and ComputationSame topicChemical Reaction MechanismsFrench-language works237,207