MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092386656 · doi:10.1107/s0108768105031125

Geometrical parameterization of the crystal chemistry of <i>P</i>6<sub>3</sub>/<i>m</i> apatites: comparison with experimental data and <i>ab initio</i> results

2005· article· en· W2092386656 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Crystallographica Section B Structural Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRare-earth and actinide compounds
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAb initioAb initio quantum chemistry methodsCrystal (programming language)CrystallographyChemistryComputational chemistryMaterials sciencePhysical chemistryComputer scienceOrganic chemistryMolecule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experimental structure refinements and ab initio simulation results for 18 published, fully ordered P6(3)/m (A;{\rm I}_4)(A;{\rm II}_6)(BO4)6X2 apatite end-member compositions have been analyzed in terms of a geometric crystal-chemical model that allows the prediction of unit-cell parameters (a and c) and all atom coordinates. To an accuracy of +/- 0.025 A, the magnitude of c was reproduced from crystal-chemical parameters characterizing chains of ...-A(II)-O3-B-O3-A(II)-... atoms, whereas that of a was determined from those describing (A(I)O6)-(BO4) polyhedral arrangements. The c/a ratio could be predicted to +/-0.2% using multi-variable functions based on geometric crystal-chemical model predictions, but could not be ascribed to the adjustment of a single crystal-chemical parameter. The correlations observed between algebraically independent crystal-chemical parameters representing the main observed polyhedral distortions reveal them as the minimum-energy solution to accommodate misfit components within this flexible structure type. For materials with given composition, good agreement (within +/- 0.5-2.0%) of ab initio crystal-chemical parameters was observed with only those from single-crystal refinements with R </= 4.0%. Agreement with single-crystal work with R > 4.0% was not as good, while the scatter with those from Rietveld refinements was considerable. Accordingly, ab initio cell data, atomic coordinates and crystal-chemical parameters were reported here for the following compositions awaiting experimental work: (Zn,Hg)10(PO4)6(Cl,F)2, (Ca,Cd)10(VO4)6Cl2 and (Ca,Pb,Cd)10(CrO4)6Cl2.

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 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 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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.233 · 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