MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117321905 · doi:10.1021/acs.jpcc.5c07227

Asymmetric Bonding in Glassy TeO <sub>2</sub> and the Search for Conjectured Terminal Oxygen

2025· article· en· W7117321905 on OpenAlexafffund
A. R. Farrant, J. W. Zwanziger

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry C · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGlass properties and applications
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTerminal (telecommunication)TelluriumOxygenWork (physics)X-ray photoelectron spectroscopyStoichiometryChemical bondCrystal (programming language)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry CSame topicGlass properties and applicationsFrench-language works237,207