Applications of the Twinning CIF Dictionary 1.0 for Twinned Crystals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Version 1.0 of the Twinning CIF Dictionary was posted on the IUCr web site in February 2014.[1] The purpose of this presentation is to illustrate the application of these definitions in many common situations relevant to chemical crystallography. Within these definitions are tools to describe all known twin types as defined by the monograph by Nespolo.[2] Tools are available to describe a single twin law or combinations of unrelated twin laws. These definitions were developed mindful that experimental data should have a set format for deposition and validation through future developments of the web-based IUCr CheckCIF software. Several examples of twins will be presented to illustrate the functionality of these definitions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.099 | 0.044 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".