Constraints on structural models of ferrihydrite as a nanocrystalline material
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, Michel et al. (2007a) have presented a structure for ferrihydrite that we show to be incorrect. We do this by comparing (1) the sample form factor without adjustable parameters from powder X-ray diffraction data using a recently developed method with (2) exactly simulated (Debyesum method) theoretical sample form factors for the recently proposed structure (including vacancy, particle size and shape, and positional disorder effects). Michel et al. (2007a) used pair distribution functions (PDFs) extracted from synchrotron diffraction data fitted with calculated PDFs using adjustable scale and peak shape parameters. The PDF method gives consistent short-range (coordination sphere) correlations but under-emphasizes intermediate-range correlations that represent more stringent constraints on the structure. Main characteristic diffraction peaks of six-line ferrihydrite (lines 2, 3, and 4) are not reproduced by the proposed structural model. We expect our method to offer rigorous tests of proposed structures of any nanocrystalline materials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".