Bibliographic record
Abstract
Renewed interest in lanthanide contraction results from its possible effect on the properties and applications of Ln(III) compounds and the theory related to these issues. To understand this effect, it is important to know what is a normal dependence of the contraction on the number of 4f electrons, n . The normal trend is based on recent values of ionic radii that have a linear dependence on n for coordination numbers (CNs) of 6, 8, and 9. If the normal trend is not followed, then some other interactions in the system are affecting the extent of contraction. However, the suggestion that the variation is curved and fitted by a quadratic function has become popular in recent years. This report examines the Ln(III)-to-ligand atom distances for coordination compounds with CNs of 6–9 and the nitrides and phosphides. Least-squares fits to the linear and quadratic models are applied to all of the bond distances to determine when a quadratic model is justified. The result is that complex systems show a mixture of linear and quadratic dependencies when individual bond distances are considered and that the linear model is most common and representative of the true lanthanide contraction.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".