Measurement of coherent x-ray scatter form factors for amorphous materials using diffractometers
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 feasibility of measuring the coherent x-ray scatter form factors of amorphous materials using powder diffractometers has been assessed. A five-step procedure was developed: (i) Low-angle background, consisting of a portion of the incident x-ray beam that passes directly to the detector, is measured using a specially designed replacement for the sample holder which absorbs most of the photons that otherwise would scatter off the sample holder cavity. (ii) Angle-dependent effects including monochromator efficiency and projected beam area are characterized by extracting the incoherent signal from the diffraction pattern of powdered graphite. The incoherent signal divided by the calculated incoherent cross section gives a correction factor as a function of scattering angle theta. (iii) Diffraction patterns are measured for the samples for theta = 2 degrees -150 degrees. (iv) The scattering data are corrected for background and then for angle-dependent effects. (v) The data are normalized to calculated free atom form factors at high theta, and the coherent form factor extracted. The method was implemented on two diffractometers at different energies (Co Kalpha and Cu Kalpha), and the results compared for water and plastics. Over the range 0.117 < x < 5.39 nm(-1), where x = lambda(-1) sin(theta/2), the average form factor ratio for water was 0.93. Systematic errors are difficult to eliminate. While this x-ray powder diffractometer technique suffices for a survey measurement of the form factor of a material, its accuracy is probably insufficient for detailed studies.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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