MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Problem Solving with the TOPAS Macro Language: Corrections and Constraints in Simulated Annealing and Rietveld Refinement

2010· article· en· W2092909145 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

VenueMaterials science forum · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicX-ray Diffraction in Crystallography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMacroParameterized complexitySimulated annealingRietveld refinementCode (set theory)Annealing (glass)Computer scienceMaterials scienceDiffractionLattice (music)Computational scienceProgramming languageAlgorithmOpticsMetallurgyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The TOPAS macro language can be a powerful tool for increasing the capabilities of X-ray powder diffraction analysis. New corrections and constraints can be implemented without altering the program's code, allowing for experimentation with new ideas and approaches. Examples are given, exposing the power and flexibility of the macro language to help solving problems with a few lines of code. The use of simulated annealing for structure solution of an organic material from data exhibiting preferential orientation is one example. Another one is about extraction of useful structural information in Rietveld refinement of natural hydrotalcite-group minerals, a problematic case that would normally be regarded as over-parameterized for the data available.

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)0.002
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.239 · 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