Reply to: On the giant deformation and ferroelectricity of guanidinium nitrate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following a practice of publishing commentaries to articles of other authors ( n.b ., six published comments 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ), Marek Szafrański (MS) and Andrzej Katrusiak (AK) have recently published a Matters Arising article “On the giant deformation and ferroelectricity of guanidinium nitrate” 7 with comments on our article “Exceptionally high work density of a ferroelectric dynamic organic crystal around room temperature” published in Nature Communications 13 , 2823 (2022) 8 . Our detailed analysis of their arguments, provided below, confirms that their claims are biased toward their results, and based on ill-supported data that are not directly comparable to our results. Moreover, they are dismissive of the wealth of electrical, structural, mechanical and computational results presented in our article, contain inconsistencies of their results such as the space groups between their earlier published results and their more recent data, and are altogether scientifically unfounded. Therefore, we reject their comments in their entirety, reiterate our conclusions, and provide further experimental evidence that supports our original results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".