MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000430544 · doi:10.1142/s0219581x04002620

X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS OF NANOPARTICLES: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS, POTENTIAL PROBLEMS AND SOME SOLUTIONS

2004· article· en· W2000430544 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Nanoscience · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicX-ray Diffraction in Crystallography
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrystalliteNanocrystalline materialMaterials scienceNanomaterialsDiffractionCrystallinityNanoparticleAnisotropyX-ray crystallographyNanotechnologyOpticsComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Powder X-ray diffraction has become a cornerstone technique for deriving crystallite size in nanoscience due to speed and "simplicity". Unfortunately, this apparently simple technique commonly has unexpected problems. Anisotropic peak broadening related to crystallite shape, defects, and microstrain occurs frequently in nanomaterials and can significantly complicate the analysis. In some instances, the usage of the conventional single peak approach would give erroneous results, and in others, this type of analysis is not even possible. A number of different nanocrystalline oxides have been examined to determine their crystallite sizes by different techniques. They differ in terms of crystal symmetry, crystallinity, density, and present different challenges with regard to size analysis.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.248 · 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