MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129296786 · doi:10.1002/chem.200601107

Vertex Spirals in Fullerenes and Their Implications for Nomenclature of Fullerene Derivatives

2006· article· en· W2129296786 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick W. Fowler, Daniel Horspool, Wendy Myrvold

Bibliographic record

VenueChemistry - A European Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicFullerene Chemistry and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFullereneVertex (graph theory)NumberingPolyhedronCombinatoricsTetrahedronPentagonAutomorphismMathematicsChemistryPhysicsCrystallographyAlgorithmQuantum mechanicsGeometryGraph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The IUPAC nomenclature of fullerene derivatives is based on the vertex spiral, but not all fullerenes possess one. There are 1495 isomers with ≤20 vertices (66 isolated‐pentagon isomers with ≤150 vertices) that are vertex‐aspiral, but only four for which all vertex spiral starts succeed. Vertex‐aspiral trivalent polyhedra are common (40 190 with ≤24 vertices); infinite series include truncates of all trivalents larger than the tetrahedron. An alternative and readily automated breadth‐first‐search numbering scheme is proposed to deal with all trivalent polyhedra including fullerenes and incidentally to give robust, efficient determination of the automorphism/point group. For fullerenes, the new scheme has two clear advantages over the vertex spiral nomenclature: it is exception‐free, removing the need for complex prescriptions to deal with exceptional cases, and it is mathematically simpler in that the numbering can be found in linear rather than quadratic time (as all canonical numberings for a fullerene begin on a pentagon).

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations28
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemistry - A European JournalSame topicFullerene Chemistry and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207