Bibliographic record
Abstract
The differences between Wang and Liebau's [Wang & Liebau (2007). Acta Cryst. B63, 216-228] stoichiometric valence (atomic valence) and structural valence (bond-valence sum) observed in Sn(2+) and other lone-pair cation oxycomplexes arises from their use of the Brese & O'Keeffe bond-valence parameters which are based on the assumption that the bond-valence parameter b = 0.37 A applies to all bond types. According to the theory of the bond-valence model, the bond-valence sum is necessarily equal to the ionic charge, implying that in the Wang and Liebau model the ionic charges are equal to the structural valence. If charges are chosen equal to the stoichiometric valence, the bond-valence parameters for Sn(2+)-O bonds are R(0) = 1.859 A, b = 0.55 A. While both models are theoretically valid, only the standard model relates bond valences to the concept of atomic valence. Wang and Liebau's suggestion that cation-lone-pair bonds make a significant contribution to the valence sums is confirmed, but such bonds cannot account for the full difference between the stoichiometric and structural valences because they are present in only a few compounds.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".