MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324914298 · doi:10.2741/e645

The carbonate ion in hydroxyapatite Recent X-ray and infrared results

2012· review· en· W2324914298 on OpenAlexaff
Michael E. Fleet

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Bioscience-Elite · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbonateFourier transform infrared spectroscopyApatiteCarbonate IonIonInfraredChemistryInfrared spectroscopyCrystal structureCrystallographyPhosphateCrystal (programming language)Materials scienceMineralogyOpticsPhysicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The location and orientation of the carbonate ion in the channel (A) and phosphate (B) positions of hydroxyapatite (CHAP) have been investigated by single-crystal X-ray structure and Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, using crystals synthesized at high pressure. The type A carbonate ion is oriented in the apatite channel with two oxygen atoms close to the c-axis and the B carbonate ion is located near a sloping face of the substituted phosphate tetrahedron. Close comparison of FTIR and X-ray structure results shows that a Na-bearing CHAP containing approximately equal amounts of A and B carbonate ions is a realistic model for the overall crystal structure of biological apatite. However, the absence of distinct OH stretch and OH libration bands indicates that the hydroxyl content of biological apatite is disordered in respect to its orientation and precise location both in the channel and elsewhere in the structure.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations40
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Bioscience-EliteSame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207