MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2061984469 · doi:10.1086/339899

A 3.4 Micron Band in Magnesium Silicates: Preparation of Hydrocarbon-Silicate Condensates

2002· article· en· W2061984469 on OpenAlexaff
Victor I. Grishko, W. W. Duley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilicateHydrocarbonAbsorption bandPhysicsAmorphous solidMethaneAbsorption (acoustics)Infrared spectroscopyInfraredInterstellar mediumForsteriteSpectral lineAnalytical Chemistry (journal)AstrophysicsMineralogyChemistryCrystallographyOrganic chemistryAstronomyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have obtained infrared spectra of amorphous forsterite, Mg 2 SiO 4 , prepared in the presence of gaseous methane and find that hydrocarbon groups such as CH 2 and CH 3 can be incorporated in the silicate lattice. These chemical groups have little effect on the 10 μm silicate Si–O stretching band but introduce a 3.4 μm band similar, but not identical, to that seen in pure carbonaceous deposits including hydrogenated amorphous carbon. Absorption in this band is enhanced in the 2958 and 2873 cm -1 (3.38 and 3.48 μm) transitions of the CH 3 asymmetric and symmetric stretching vibrations, respectively. Additional absorption features identified with Si(CH 3 ) 1, 2, 3 and Si(CH 2 )Si groups have also been observed, and a band corresponding to the Si-phenyl stretch has been detected. We discuss the possibility that hydrocarbon-silicate grains may be a component of interstellar matter, particularly in the winds from asymptotic giant branch stars with mixed carbon-silicate chemistry.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations10
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies→French-language works237,207→