MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951567044 · doi:10.1021/ic901582j

Gd<sub>5</sub>Si<sub>4-<i>x</i></sub>Bi<sub><i>x</i></sub> Structures: Novel Slab Sequences Achieved by Turning off the Directionality of Nearest-Slab Interactions

2009· article· en· W2951567044 on OpenAlexaff
Volodymyr Svitlyk, Branton J. Campbell, Yurij Mozharivskyj

Bibliographic record

VenueInorganic Chemistry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRare-earth and actinide compounds
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlabStackingChemistryDirectionalityCrystallographyScatteringMolecular physicsPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Substitution of Bi for Si leads to the complete cleavage of the interslab dimers T-T in the Gd(5)Si(4-x)Bi(x) system with x = 1.58 - 2.42 (T is a mixture of Si and Bi). Equivalence of the interslab T...T contacts, achieved through combination of the electronic and geometrical parameters, removes directionality of nearest-slab interactions and allows for a novel slab stacking. Two new slab sequences, ABCDABCD (x = 2.07, I4(1)/acd space group) and ABADABAD (x = 2.42, P4(2)bc), have been discovered in Gd(5)Si(4-x)Bi(x) in addition to the known one, ABAB, that is dominant among the RE(5)X(4) phases (RE is a rare-earth element, X is a p-element). The slab stacking for x = 2.07 and x = 2.42 is dictated by the second-nearest slab interactions which promote an origin shift either for the entire slab sequence as in ABCDABCD or for every other second-nearest slab pair as in ABADABAD. The loss of the directionality of the nearest-slab bonding allows for extensive stacking faults and leads to diffuse scattering.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations15
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInorganic ChemistrySame topicRare-earth and actinide compoundsFrench-language works237,207