MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884558235 · doi:10.1107/s1600576718007719

The nanodiffraction problem

2018· article· en· W2884558235 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Crystallography · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicX-ray Diffraction in Crystallography
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersBasic Energy SciencesBrookhaven National LaboratoryOffice of ScienceColumbia UniversityU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsDiffractionNanocrystalline materialInverseLattice (music)Materials scienceLattice constantStandard deviationSystematic errorOpticsPower lawX-ray crystallographyComputational physicsRelative standard deviationCondensed matter physicsPhysicsStatistical physicsMathematicsStatisticsGeometryNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The results of a systematic rigorous study on the accuracy of lattice parameters computed from X-ray diffraction patterns of ideally perfect nanocrystalline powder and thin-film samples are presented. It is shown that, if the dimensions of such samples are below 20 nm, the lattice parameters obtained from diffraction analysis will deviate from their true values. The relative deviation depends on the relevant size parameter through an inverse power law and, for particular reflections, depends on the angular peak positions. This size-dependent error, Δ a / a , is larger than the precision of typical X-ray diffraction measurements for ∼20 nm-thick diffracting domains, and it can be several orders of magnitude larger for particles smaller than 5 nm.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.226 · 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