Asymmetric Bonding in Glassy TeO <sub>2</sub> and the Search for Conjectured Terminal Oxygen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discovering whether glassy TeO 2 resembles any or all of its known crystal phases is important both for expanding the existing models of heavy-metal-containing glasses and for understanding macroscopic properties of Te-containing glasses. The asymmetric coordination environments around Te 4+ centers in crystalline α-TeO 2 and γ-TeO 2 have led to a controversy concerning the nature and classification of the Te–O bond in the glass form and, in particular, whether any of the Te–O bonds could be considered as “terminal”. The present work presents new high-resolution X-ray photoelectron spectroscopic data on oxygen and tellurium in TeO 2 along with first-principles calculations to investigate the spectroscopic signatures of the Te–O bonds. We show that a true terminal Te═O bond would have a distinctive spectroscopic signature, different from an oxygen bonded asymmetrically to two tellurium atoms; such a terminal oxygen signature is, in fact, not observed in the TeO 2 glass. Our data show that the TeO 2 glass structure has indeed some short Te–O bonds, as in γ-TeO 2, but that these are not terminal and rather are asymmetrically coordinated, similar to both α-TeO 2 and γ-TeO 2 .
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".