Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The 9th International Symposium on Crystalline Organic Metals, Superconductors and Ferromagnets (ISCOM 2011) was held from September 25 until September 30, 2011, in the city of Gniezno. Gniezno has a peculiar importance for Polish people – it was the first capital of Poland in the 10th century. ISCOM 2011 follows an already long‐lasting series of previous meetings organized in Mittelberg (Austria, 1995), Sesimbra (Portugal, 1997), Oxford (United Kingdom, 1999), Rusutsu (Japan, 2001), Port‐Bourgenay (France, 2003), Key West (USA, 2005), Peniscola (Spain, 2007), and Niseko (Japan, 2009). ISCOM 2011 was organized by the Institute of Molecular Physics of the Polish Academy of Sciences and the Committee of Physics of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Traditionally, each symposium of the ISCOM series is the preeminent forum for interdisciplinary discussions of chemistry, physics, materials science and technology of crystalline molecular solids, including the following main topics: – Synthesis of New Molecules and Molecular Materials – Physics of Low Dimensional Metals and Superconductors – Electron Correlations in Molecular Materials – Molecular Magnetism – Functional Materials – Organic Thin Films and Devices – Organic Molecular Nanoscience – Field‐ and Photo‐induced Phenomena – Theory, Modeling and Computation About 170 scientists from the following 18 countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Korea, Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Spain, UK, USA attended ISCOM 2011. During the symposium 16 invited lectures, 60 oral contributions and about 80 posters were presented. The ISCOM 2011 participants have focused on many hot scientific problems of organic conductors: metal–insulator transitions, nature of the Mott insulating state, charge ordering phenomena, mechanisms of superconductivity, quantum spin liquids, hybrid magnetic conductors, electronic ferroelectricity, and others. We would like to thank all participants and the members of the International Advisory Committee for great contributions and many helpful advices. On behalf of the Organizing Committee (© 2012 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.236 | 0.123 |
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".