Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Correlation effects in MgO and CaO: Cohesive energies and lattice constants

mtrl-th · Submitted 2 Sep 1996

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim Lattice constants corrected for correlation effects deviate by less than 1% from experimental values, in the case of MgO and CaO.

how it is stated · asserted 1.00 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv IDmtrl-th/9609001 (version 1)
Pith ID76I56WAA, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationHermann Stoll, Klaus Doll, Michael Dolg. "Correlation effects in MgO and CaO: Cohesive energies and lattice constants." arXiv:mtrl-th/9609001 (1996). https://pith.science/paper/76I56WAA
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 2,934 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.05 · states limitation 0.45 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.27 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.99 · compares with prior results 0.90 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

A recently proposed computational scheme based on local increments has been applied to the calculation of correlation contributions to the cohesive energy of the CaO crystal. Using ab-initio quantum chemical methods for evaluating individual increments, we obtain 80% of the difference between the experimental and Hartree-Fock cohesive energies. Lattice constants corrected for correlation effects deviate by less than 1% from experimental values, in the case of MgO and CaO.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 A recently proposed computational scheme based on local increments has been applied to the calculation of correlation contributions to the cohesive energy of the CaO crystal. contribution 0.57 0.73 0.08 asserted 0.99
s1 Using ab-initio quantum chemical methods for evaluating individual increments, we obtain 80% of the difference between the experimental and Hartree-Fock cohesive energies. result 0.99 0.93 0.25 asserted 1.00
s2 Lattice constants corrected for correlation effects deviate by less than 1% from experimental values, in the case of MgO and CaO. result 1.00 0.85 0.40 asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: simulation study 1.00 · evidence from simulation or computation 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v1
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

A recently proposed computational scheme based on local increments has been applied to the calculation of correlation contributions to the cohesive energy of the CaO crystal. Using ab-initio quantum chemical methods for evaluating individual increments, we obtain 80% of the difference between the experimental and Hartree-Fock cohesive energies. Lattice constants corrected for correlation effects deviate by less than 1% from experimental values, in the case of MgO and CaO.

Human review

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.