Pressure-induced formation of rhodium zigzag chains in the honeycomb rhodate<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Li</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>RhO</mml:mi><mml:mn>3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We use powder x-ray diffraction to study the effect of pressure on the crystal structure of the honeycomb rhodate ${\mathrm{Li}}_{2}{\mathrm{RhO}}_{3}$. We observe low-pressure ($P<{P}_{c1}=6.5\phantom{\rule{0.16em}{0ex}}\mathrm{GPa}$) and high-pressure ($P>{P}_{c2}=14\phantom{\rule{0.16em}{0ex}}\mathrm{GPa}$) regions corresponding to the monoclinic $C2/m$ symmetry, while a phase mixture is observed at intermediate pressures. At $P>{P}_{c2}$, the honeycomb structure becomes distorted and features short Rh-Rh bonds forming zigzag chains stretched along the crystallographic $a$ direction. This is in contrast to dimerized patterns observed in triclinic high-pressure polymorphs of $\ensuremath{\alpha}\text{\ensuremath{-}}{\mathrm{Li}}_{2}{\mathrm{IrO}}_{3}$ and $\ensuremath{\alpha}\text{\ensuremath{-}}{\mathrm{RuCl}}_{3}$. Density-functional theory calculations at various pressure conditions reveal that the observed rhodium zigzag-chain pattern is not expected under hydrostatic pressure but can be reproduced by assuming anisotropic pressure conditions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.112 | 0.006 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".