Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern reviews on crystal growth and defects in crystals overlook the fact that a significant portion of materials can spontaneously grow as single crystals with twisted and bent morphologies and curved crystal lattices. Twisted crystals can be found among all types of materials (molecular crystals, salts, minerals, high polymers, metals, and elements) crystallizing in any point and space group from all types of growth media (vapor, solution, gel, glass, melt, and solid state). Their size spans over more than six orders of magnitude ranging from nm where 3D character is equivocal, to cm or dm (some of the biggest natural crystals). Here are illustrated most important features of twisted crystals as well as an analysis of mechanisms that are responsible for this mysterious phenomenon [1]. In general, formation of a twisted crystal is a complex phenomenon involving with certain requirements for dissymmetry, isomorphism, and crystal chemistry. Also critical are processes at the crystal-medium interface as well as the elasticity and plasticity of the crystalline medium. As such, twisting is strongly controlled by morphology and symmetry of the growth face. It frequently requires impurities, sometimes in extremely low concentrations. The intensity of deformation is inversely proportional to the crystal size. The phenomenon is more common when the driving force for crystallization and the temperature are high. Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain the formation of unusual curved morphologies: axial dislocation in whiskers (Eshelby twist); surface stress in polymer lamellae; surface charge and spontaneous polarization in nanoribbons; inhomogeneous fields forming around a growing crystal; and internal stress created by an inhomogeneous impurity distribution. However, most of the mechanisms proposed are insufficiently developed and need further verification and elaboration. The work was supported by the US National Science Foundation and New York University.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".