MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587603401 · doi:10.1038/srep42143

Non-patchy strategy for inter-atomic distances from Extended X-ray Absorption Fine Structure

2017· article· en· W2587603401 on OpenAlexaff
Gu Xu, Guifang Li, Xianya Li, Yi Liang, Zhe Chuan Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicX-ray Diffraction in Crystallography
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbsorption (acoustics)Computer scienceComputational biologyMaterials scienceCrystallographyPhysicsChemistryBiologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extended X-ray Absorption Fine Structure (EXAFS) has been one of the few structural probes available for crystalline, non-crystalline and even highly disordered specimens. However, the data analysis involves a patchy and tinkering process, including back-and-forth fitting and filtering, leading to ambiguous answers sometimes. Here we try to resolve this long standing problem, to extract the inter-atomic distances from the experimental data by a single step minimization, in order to replace the tedious and tinkering process. The new strategy is built firmly by the mathematical logic, and made straightforward and undeniable. The finding demonstrates that it is possible to break off from the traditional patchy model fitting, and to remove the logical confusion of a priori prediction of the structure to be matched with experimental data, making it a much more powerful technique than the existing methods. The new method is expected to benefit EXAFS users covering all disciplines. Also, it is anticipated that the current work to be the motivation and inspiration to the further efforts.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicX-ray Diffraction in CrystallographyFrench-language works237,207