MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320485907 · doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.3c00017

Sensitivity of the Kβ″ X-ray Emission Line to Coordination Changes in GeO<sub>2</sub> and TiO<sub>2</sub>

2023· article· en· W4320485907 on OpenAlexafffund
Georg Spiekermann, Christoph J. Sahle, Johannes Niskanen, Keith Gilmore, Sylvain Petitgirard, Christian Sternemann, John S. Tse, Motohiko Murakami

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicX-ray Spectroscopy and Fluorescence Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEidgenössische Technische Hochschule ZürichAcademy of Finland
KeywordsCoordination numberAmorphous solidAb initioMaterials scienceCoordination complexEmission spectrumLine (geometry)Sensitivity (control systems)CrystallographyAb initio quantum chemistry methodsMolecular physicsChemistryAtomic physicsSpectral linePhysicsIonMoleculeMetalGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide The hard X-ray Kβ″ emission line shows sensitivity with respect to a wide range of cation–ligand coordination, which we investigate in the cases of GeO 2 and TiO 2 on the basis of ab initio spectral calculations on amorphous and crystalline structures. In compressed amorphous GeO 2, the sampling of a large number of instantaneous coordination polyhedra from an ab initio molecular dynamics trajectory reveals that the functional relation between the Kβ″ shift and coordination is close to linear between 4-fold and 7-fold coordination. A similar sensitivity of the Kβ″ emission line exists in the coordination range between six and nine of crystalline high-pressure TiO 2 polymorphs. Our results demonstrate the potential of the Kβ″ emission line in research on the structure of amorphous oxide material.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry LettersSame topicX-ray Spectroscopy and Fluorescence AnalysisFrench-language works237,207