On the Claims for Discovery of Elements 110, 111, 112, 114, 116, and 118Elements 111, 112, 114, 116 and 118 under the IUPAC systematic (provisional) naming system, are referred to as unununium, ununbium, ununquadium, ununhexium, and ununoctium, respectively. Element 110 has recently been given the name and symbol “darmstadtium, Ds”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party on the priority of claims to the discovery of new elements has reviewed the relevant literature pertaining to several claims. In accordance with the criteria for the discovery of elements, previously established by the 1992 IUPAC/IUPAP Transfermium Working Group, and reinforced by the 1999 IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party, it was determined that the claim by the Hofmann et al. research collaboration for the discovery of element 111 at Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung (GSI) has fulfilled those criteria. For elements 112, 114, and 116, the collaborations of Hofmann et al. and of Oganessian et al. produced high-quality data with plausible interpretations. However, confirmation by further results is needed to assign priority of discovery for these elements. The working party was not persuaded that other collaborations have satisfied the discovery criteria.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.027 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".