MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995297193 · doi:10.1139/cjc-2019-0402

Utilizing plane group symmetry to favor noncentrosymmetry in three-dimensional crystals

2019· article· en· W2995297193 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ren A. Wiscons, Adam J. Matzger

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNonlinear Optical Materials Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSteric effectsChemistryPlanarPoint reflectionCrystallographyPolarization (electrochemistry)Crystal (programming language)MoleculeSymmetry (geometry)Chemical physicsSymmetry operationCrystallographic point groupCrystal structureCondensed matter physicsStereochemistryGeometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Materials that lack inversion symmetry (noncentrosymmetric) demonstrate a diversity of desirable optical and electronic properties in bulk such as second harmonic generation, chiral emission, and piezo-, pyro-, and ferro-electricity. Unfortunately, it is challenging to reliably access noncentrosymmetric packing motifs because the closest packing of molecules is often achieved through inversion symmetry operators, leading to the relatively low occurrence of noncentrosymmetry in organic crystals. In this study, the occurrence of noncentrosymmetry in materials that adopt planar packing motifs is investigated because molecular species achieve closest packing in two dimensions through rotations and (or) glides, symmetry operators that do not individually lead to centrosymmetry. It is found that of the 18 crystal structures investigated here adopting planar packing motifs, 13 structures (72%) are noncentrosymmetric showing in-plane polarization. The 13 noncentrosymmetric crystal structures differ from the centrosymmetric structures by directional halogen bonding interactions or steric collisions that align the polarization directions of neighboring layers, leading to bulk structural polarity. The results from this investigation will be of use for designing noncentrosymmetric materials for application in optical and electronic devices.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicNonlinear Optical Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207