MICROSTRUCTURES OF COMMON POLYGONAL SERPENTINES FROM AXIAL HRTEM IMAGING, ELECTRON DIFFRACTION, AND LATTICE-SIMULATION DATA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Imaging with high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM), selected-area electron diffraction (SAED), and numerical simulations of the diffraction patterns are combined to further document the microstructures of the most widespread types of 15-sector and 30-sector polygonal serpentines. Imaging, diffraction and simulation data recorded along the fiber axis are reconciled with a model involving lateral continuity of the 1:1 layer structure and a curvature without inversion of the sheets of tetrahedra across the sector boundaries. Axial fivefold symmetry is confirmed for polygonal serpentines. This model differs from sharp-boundary models proposed by [Chisholm (1991][1], [1992)][2], without inversion, and by [Dodony (1993][3], [1997a)][4], with inversion. Streaked diffraction chords connecting Bragg reflections are typical of all polygonal fibrils. They are due to curved layers with constant curvature at sector boundaries, involving extra spacing and locally distorted H-bonds between layers. This is a peculiarity of polygonal serpentines, not present in other varieties of rolled serpentine. [1]: #ref-9 [2]: #ref-10 [3]: #ref-18 [4]: #ref-19
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".