MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065867781 · doi:10.2113/gscanmin.40.6.1579

A TOPOLOGICALLY NOVEL SHEET OF URANYL PENTAGONAL BIPYRAMIDS IN THE STRUCTURE OF Na[(UO2)4O2(OH)5](H2O)2

2002· article· en· W2065867781 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peter C. Burns, K. M. Deely

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Mineralogist · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicRadioactive element chemistry and processing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUranylHexagonal crystal systemCrystallographyMaterials scienceChemistryMetallurgyUranium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nous avons synthetise un nouveau compose, un oxyde de sodium et d'uranyle hydrate, Na[(UO 2 ) 4 O 2 (OH) 5 ](H 2 O) 2 , par reaction hydrothermale. La structure, dans le groupe spatial P1, a 8.0746(9), b 8.4633(10), c11.2181(13) A, a 80.398(2), β 87.492(2), γ 71.308(2)°, V 715.97(14) A 3 , Z = 2, a ete resolue et affinee en utilisant les facteurs F 2 pour toutes les donnees uniques prelevees avec rayonnement X monochromatique MoKa et un detecteur CCD jusqu'a un facteur de concordance (Rl) de 4.49%, calcule en utilisant 2915 reflexions uniques observees (‖F o ‖ ≥ 4σ F ). La structure contient quatre cations U 6 + symetriquement distincts, chacun d'eux fortement lies a deux atomes d'oxygene, pour donner des ions uranyles (UO 2 ) 2 + . Chacun de ces ions est coordonne a cinq anions. Les bipyramides pentagonales uranylees qui en resultent sont liees par partage de coins et d'aretes en feuillets qui ont une topologie non encore observee. Le seul cation Na, symetriquement distinct, est situe entre les feuillets, ou il entre en coordinence avec huit ligands, y inclus deux groupes H 2 O. La structure de Na[(UO 2 ) 4 O 2 (OH) 5 ](H 2 O) 2 ressemble etroitement a celle du compose Ca[(UO 2 ) 4 O 3 (OH) 4 ](H 2 O) 2 , quoique les feuillets dans ces deux structures possedent des topologies distinctes.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 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

Citations23
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian MineralogistSame topicRadioactive element chemistry and processingFrench-language works237,207