MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059273314 · doi:10.1180/minmag.2009.073.4.519

Radiation-induced defects in quartz: a multifrequency EPR study and DFT modelling of new peroxy radicals

2009· article· en· W2059273314 on OpenAlexafffund
Yuanming Pan, Mark J. Nilges, R. I. Mashkovtsev

Bibliographic record

VenueMineralogical Magazine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGlass properties and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsElectron paramagnetic resonanceHyperfine structureQuartzRadicalChemistryIrradiationAnnealing (glass)CrystallographyMolecular physicsNuclear magnetic resonanceMaterials scienceAtomic physicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A natural quartz, annealed first at 800°C and then irradiated with a 3.5 MeV electron beam, has been investigated by single-crystal electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy at X- and W-band frequencies from 110 K to 298 K. The W-band EPR spectra allow better separation of two previously reported radiation-induced defects (D and E) and improved determinations of their spin Hamiltonian parameters. These defects have similar g tensors with the g max axes approximately along an O—O pair and g min axes perpendicular to the short Si—O bonds, but different 27 Al hyperfine structures. Centre E is also characterized by a 29 Si hyperfine structure (A/g e β e = ~0.4 mT). These spin Hamiltonian parameters, together with results from density functional theory (DFT) calculations, suggest centre E to be a new variant of peroxy radicals in quartz, whereas a peroxy radical model for centre D remains tentative. Thermal stabilities and decay kinetics of centres D and E have been investigated by use of isochronal and isothermal annealing experiments on a neutron-irradiated quartz and six smoky quartz crystals in druses from a U deposit.

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 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 score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.220 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations26
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineralogical MagazineSame topicGlass properties and applicationsFrench-language works237,207