MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035982231 · doi:10.1126/science.1221738

Comment on “The Local Structure of Amorphous Silicon”

2012· letter· en· W2035982231 on OpenAlexaff
S. Roorda, Laurent J. Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2012
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGlass properties and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParacrystallineAmorphous solidSiliconAmorphous siliconMonte Carlo methodElectron microscopeMaterials scienceReverse Monte CarloDiffractionResolution (logic)CrystallographyStatistical physicsMolecular physicsPhysicsChemistryOpticsCrystalline siliconComputer scienceOptoelectronicsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Treacy and Borisenko (Reports, 24 February 2012, p. 950) argue from reverse Monte Carlo modeling of electron diffraction and fluctuation electron microscopy data that amorphous silicon is paracrystalline and not described by a continuous random network. However, their models disagree with high-resolution x-ray measurements and other evidence, whereas the agreement with fluctuation electron microscopy is at best qualitative.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.216 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations24
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScienceSame topicGlass properties and applicationsFrench-language works237,207