LRL_WEB, A Website for a More Thorough Exploration of Bravais Lattice Types of Your Unit Cells
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even today, the standard programs for determining likely lattice types still sometimes fail to recognize the correct symmetry of a crystal (Le Trong & Stenkamp, 2007). Experience has shown that the programs BGAOL (Andrews & Bernstein, 2014) and the newer program Sella (in preparation) produce more complete results. Sella produces an especially useful map of the hierarchy of lattice types (Grimmer, 2016, described the hierarchy). LRL_WEB allows access to Sella, BGAOL, SAUC (McGill et al., 2014), PlotC3, Delaunay and Niggli reductions. An example of the hierarchy maps is a case cited by Le Trong & Stenkamp, PDB entry 1G2X, as C-centered monoclinic, C 80.95 80.57 57.1 90 90.35 90. Sella produces Figure 1, which of course shows a perfect match to mS (side centered monoclinic), but also a relatively good match to hR (rhombohedral). The example is one of a group of probably identical structures of Krait toxin phospolipase A2. Figure 2 shows two Bravais lattice types, as defined by Delaunay. We can use PlotC3 to learn more about these two orthorhombic types. O3 is described as body-centered, and O4 is side-centered. In Figure 3, the upper panel was produced using O3 data and the lower using O4 data. For each case, CmdGen (on the web site) was used to create 200 random cells of the selected type. Considering the upper panel (O3), there are two panes that show the projections as lines, and the third shows a point. That tells us that the plot is described by a plane, even though we are examining a 6-dimensional plot. The lower panel also shows two projections as lines, but the third is random. In this case we are looking at a 3-space object in the 6-dimensional space S6, one representation of unit cells. So Figure 3 has told us that O3 is a 2-dimensional object, but we know that orthorhombic unit cells have to have 3 parameters. O4 being a 3-space object is what is expected. We learn that O3 is a degenerate type, and we can determine that in a different way using Figure 2. The characteristic of S6 vectors for O3 is (rs0 rs0), and for O4 it is (00r sst). O3 has only 2 available parameters, and O4 has 3, which we expect for orthorhombic. In fact, some additional research shows that O3 is the boundary between two other types.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it