Three-Dimensional Morphological Analysis of ALH84001 Magnetite Using Electron Tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report here the crystal morphologies of MV-1 and ALH84001 magnetites as calculated by back-projection using electron tomography. In the present study, we used a 300 keV TEM with a field emission gun (Tecnai F-30 from FEI Inc.), equipped with a 2048 x 2048 pixel CCD camera from Gatan Inc. to image magnetite crystals over tilt ranges of approx. +/- 72 deg in 2 deg tilt intervals. The images were aligned for back-projection, either manually, or through the use of fiducial 5 nm Au spheres affixed to the specimen prior to microscopy. Three-dimensional (3-D) reconstructions were computed using weighted back-projection of the tilted views. The tomograms were viewed and analyzed as a series of slices 1.0 nm thick, taken parallel to the specimen-supporting grid, using the IMOD software package. The shape of each magnetite crystal was determined by defining the external contour of a given magnetite in each slice and assembling a stack of these contours in 3-D. To aid in visualization, the stacked contour array was reduced to an optimal mesh by Delaunay triangulation. The surface normal to each of the triangles in the mesh was calculated and the triangle faces colored according to the orientation of that surface normal relative to the principal crystallographic axis of magnetite. Green surfaces correspond to {111} orientations, blue surfaces to {100} orientations, and red surfaces to {110} orientations. Triangles whose surface normal did not correspond to one of the principal axes were colored gray. Within the experimental and numerical uncertainties of the deconvolution, the tomographic reconstruction of both MV-1 and ALH84001 magnetites are equivalent and correspond to a truncated hexa-octahedral morphology.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".