<i>Graph</i> <i>T</i>–<i>T</i> (V1.0Beta), a program for embedding and visualizing periodic graphs in 3D Euclidean space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
tetrahedra into 2D and 3D Euclidean space. During embedding, the distance between linked vertices (T-T distances) and the distance between unlinked vertices (T...T separations) in the resultant unit-distance graph are restrained to the average observed distance between linked Si tetrahedra (3.06±0.15 Å) and the minimum separation between unlinked vertices is restrained to be equal to or greater than the minimum distance between unlinked Si tetrahedra (3.713 Å) in silicate minerals. The notional interactions between vertices are described by a 3D spring-force algorithm in which the attractive forces between linked vertices behave according to Hooke's law and the repulsive forces between unlinked vertices behave according to Coulomb's law. Embedding parameters (i.e. spring coefficient, k, and Coulomb's constant, K) are iteratively refined during embedding to determine if it is possible to embed a given graph to produce a unit-distance graph with T-T distances and T...T separations that are compatible with the observed T-T distances and T...T separations in crystal structures. The resultant unit-distance graphs are denoted as compatible and may form crystal structures if and only if all distances between linked vertices (T-T distances) agree with the average observed distance between linked Si tetrahedra (3.06±0.15 Å) and the minimum separation between unlinked vertices is equal to or greater than the minimum distance between unlinked Si tetrahedra (3.713 Å) in silicate minerals. If the unit-distance graph does not satisfy these conditions, it is considered incompatible and the corresponding chain of tetrahedra is unlikely to form crystal structures. Using GraphT-T, Day et al. [Acta Cryst. (2024), A80, 258-281] have shown that several topological properties of chain graphs influence the flexibility (and rigidity) of the corresponding chains of Si tetrahedra and may explain why particular compatible chain arrangements (and the minerals in which they occur) are more common than others and/or why incompatible chain arrangements do not occur in crystals despite being topologically possible.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.071 | 0.014 |
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".