The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Lewis Model and Beyond
Abstract
The electron pair density, in conjunction with the definition of an atom in a molecule, enables one to determine the average number of electron pairs that are localized to each atom and the number that are formed between any given pair of atoms. Thus, it is through the pair density that the Lewis model of electronic structure finds physical expression. The pairing of electrons is a consequence of the Pauli principle whose effect is made manifest through the creation of the Fermi hole. The density describing the spatial distribution of the Fermi hole for an electron of given spin determines how the density of that electron is spread out in space, excluding an equivalent amount of same-spin density. The averaging of the Fermi density over single atoms or pairs of atoms determines the corresponding contributions to the total Fermi correlation. It is these terms that yield the localization and delocalization indices that determine the intra- and interatomic distribution of electron pairs that enables one to compare the pairing predicted by theory with that of a Lewis structure. The agreement is best at the Hartree−Fock level, where the Fermi hole is the sole source of correlation between the electrons. The introduction of the remaining correlation, the Coulomb correlation, disrupts the sharing of electron pairs between the atoms, and its effect is therefore, most pronounced for shared interactions. For example, Coulomb correlation reduces the number of shared pairs in N 2 from the Hartree−Fock value of three to just above two. In ionic systems, the electrons are strongly localized within each atomic basin and the effect of Coulomb correlation on the atomic pairing is minimal, approaching zero over each of the atomic basins, as it does for the total molecule.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Self-consistent molecular orbital methods. XX. A basis set for correlated wave functions
Krishnan, R., Binkley, J. S., Seeger, R., & Pople, J. A. (1980) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.438955 · Cited by 17,772
Cited by
Poater, J., Duran, M., Solà, M., & Silvi, B. (2005) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr030085x · Cited by 803
Bond Order Analysis Based on the Laplacian of Electron Density in Fuzzy Overlap Space
Lu, T., & Chen, F. (2013) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry A · doi:10.1021/jp4010345 · Cited by 699
The aromatic fluctuation index (FLU): A new aromaticity index based on electron delocalization
Matito, E., Duran, M., & Solà, M. (2005) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.1824895 · Cited by 516
Poater, J., Fradera, X., Duran, M., & Solà, M. (2003) · Chemistry – A European Journal · doi:10.1002/chem.200390041 · Cited by 449
Self-citationA uniform approach to the description of multicenter bonding
Szczepanik, D. W., Andrzejak, M., Dyduch, K., Żak, E., Makowski, M., Mazur, G., & Mrozek, J. (2014) · Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics · doi:10.1039/c4cp02932a · Cited by 207
Metadata
- Authors
- Fradera, X., Austen, M. A., & Bader, R. F. W.
- Venue
- The Journal of Physical Chemistry A
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 1998-12-28
- Volume
- 103
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 304-314
- ISSN
- 1089-5639 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5215
- OpenAlex
- W2050170853
- Cited by
- 1,046
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.