MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766467556 · doi:10.1107/s2053273314017215

Icosahedral symmetry breaking: C<sub>60</sub>to C<sub>78</sub>, C<sub>96</sub>and to related nanotubes

2014· article· en· W2766467556 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Bodner, Emmanuel Bourret, J. Patera, Marzena Szajewska

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Crystallographica Section A Foundations and Advances · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicFullerene Chemistry and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcosahedral symmetryStack (abstract data type)CombinatoricsOrder (exchange)Surface (topology)PolytopeCrystallographyPhysicsSymmetry (geometry)Group (periodic table)Simple (philosophy)Symmetry groupMathematicsMaterials scienceGeometryChemistryQuantum mechanicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exact icosahedral symmetry of C60is viewed as the union of 12 orbits of the symmetric subgroup of order 6 of the icosahedral group of order 120. Here, this subgroup is denoted byA2because it is isomorphic to the Weyl group of the simple Lie algebraA2. Eight of theA2orbits are hexagons and four are triangles. Only two of the hexagons appear as part of the C60surface shell. The orbits form a stack of parallel layers centered on the axis of C60passing through the centers of two opposite hexagons on the surface of C60. By inserting into the middle of the stack twoA2orbits of six points each and twoA2orbits of three points each, one can match the structure of C78. Repeating the insertion, one gets C96; multiple such insertions generate nanotubes of any desired length. Five different polytopes with 78 carbon-like vertices are described; only two of them can be augmented to nanotubes.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Crystallographica Section A Foundations and AdvancesSame topicFullerene Chemistry and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207