Schematic Structural Analysis of Honeycomb Structure Ultrathin Ce–Ti–O Films on Pt(111) Using Photoelectron Holography and Ab Initio Calculation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(√3 × √3)R30 honeycomb superstructure ultrathin Ce–Ti–O film was prepared and confirmed using scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) and low-energy electron diffraction. The structural model of (√3 × √3)R30 honeycomb superstructure ultrathin film is determined using ab initio calculation and photoelectron holography. In the density functional theory (DFT) calculations, the (√3 × √3)R30 honeycomb superstructural model was calculated in two different conditions. The photoelectron holograms of Ti 2+ and Ti 3+ were separated from Ti 2p photoelectron spectra of (√3 × √3)R30 honeycomb superstructure, using a display-type retarding field analyzer. From the different forward-focusing peaks on the photoelectron holograms of Ti 2+ and Ti 3+, the vertical height between Ti divalent atoms and O atoms is higher than that between Ti trivalent atoms and O atoms. Also, the distance and direction of O and Ce atoms above Ti could be found. As a result, the simulated photoelectron holograms and the simulated STM image of the calculated Ce–Ti–O honeycomb superstructural model agree with the experimental photoelectron holograms and the experimental STM images.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".