Third structure determination by powder diffractometry round robin (SDPDRR-3)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The results from a third structure determination by powder diffractometry (SDPD) round robin are discussed. From the 175 potential participants having downloaded the powder data, nine sent a total of 12 solutions (8 and 4 for samples 1 and 2, respectively, a tetrahydrated calcium tartrate and a lanthanum tungstate). Participants used seven different computer programs for structure solution ( ESPOIR , EXPO , FOX , PSSP , SHELXS , SUPERFLIP , and TOPAS ), applying Patterson, direct methods, direct space methods, and charge flipping approach. It is concluded that solving a structure from powder data remains a challenge, at least one order of magnitude more difficult than solving a problem with similar complexity from single-crystal data. Nevertheless, a few more steps in the direction of increasing the SDPD rate of success were accomplished since the two previous round robins: this time, not only the computer program developers were successful but also some users. No result was obtained from crystal structure prediction experts.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it