Maximum disorientation angles between crystals of any point groups and their corresponding rotation axes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The symmetry-reduced misorientation, i.e. disorientation, between two crystals is represented in the angle–axis format, and the maximum disorientation angle between any two lattices of the 32 point groups is obtained by constructing the fundamental zone of the associated misorientation space ( i.e. Rodrigues–Frank space) using quaternion algebra. A computer program based on vertex enumeration was designed to automatically calculate the vertices of these fundamental zones and to seek the maximum disorientation angles and respective rotation axes. Of the C_{32}^2 = 528 possible combinations of any two crystals, 129 pairs give rise to incompletely bounded fundamental zones ( i.e. zones having at least one unbounded direction in R 3 ); these correspond to a maximum disorientation angle of 180° (the trivial value). The other 399 pairs produce fully bounded fundamental zones that lead to nine different nontrivial maximum disorientation angles; these are 56.60, 61.86, 62.80, 90, 90.98, 93.84, 98.42, 104.48 and 120°. The associated rotation axes were obtained and are plotted in stereographic projection. These angles and axes are solely determined by the symmetries of the point groups under consideration, and the only input data needed are the symmetry operators of the lattices.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it