MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986690972 · doi:10.1107/s0108767313021375

C<sub>70</sub>, C<sub>80</sub>, C<sub>90</sub>and carbon nanotubes by breaking of the icosahedral symmetry of C<sub>60</sub>

2013· article· en· W1986690972 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Bodner, J. Patera, Marzena Szajewska

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Crystallographica Section A Foundations of Crystallography · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicFullerene Chemistry and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcosahedral symmetryCombinatoricsFullereneSymmetry groupOrder (exchange)Dihedral angleCrystallographySymmetry (geometry)Dihedral groupGroup (periodic table)PhysicsMathematicsGeometryChemistryQuantum mechanicsMolecule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The icosahedral symmetry group H3 of order 120 and its dihedral subgroup H2 of order 10 are used for exact geometric construction of polytopes that are known to exist in nature. The branching rule for the H3 orbit of the fullerene C60 to the subgroup H2 yields a union of eight orbits of H2: four of them are regular pentagons and four are regular decagons. By inserting into the branching rule one, two, three or n additional decagonal orbits of H2, one builds the polytopes C70, C80, C90 and nanotubes in general. A minute difference should be taken into account depending on whether an even or odd number of H2 decagons are inserted. Vertices of all the structures are given in exact coordinates relative to a non-orthogonal basis naturally appropriate for the icosahedral group, as well as relative to an orthonormal basis. Twisted fullerenes are defined. Their surface consists of 12 regular pentagons and 20 hexagons that have three and three edges of equal length. There is an uncountable number of different twisted fullerenes, all with precise icosahedral symmetry. Two examples of the twisted C60 are described.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Crystallographica Section A Foundations of CrystallographySame topicFullerene Chemistry and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207