Incorrect-ish. Alloys have metallic bonds, colloquially a "sea of electrons." There are no[0] discrete, covalent bonds like you would find in nonmetallic molecules. But the atoms are absolutely bonded in the sharing electrons sense. This is what gives strength and toughness to metals.

[0] - grossly oversimplifying here. Also I was mostly an organic chemist and didn't study metallurgy much.

I’m confused.

The article mentions the “bonds” of this substance, but doesn’t use any description more specific than “material” to describe it.

Is this an alloy, or a molecule, or something different?

It's an alloy. See my other comment up-thread. The chemical formula here is an empirical formula - it describes the ratio in the bulk material. These are not discrete molecules but rather repeating crystal structures.

Is it an alloy? The article doesn't say, but it mentions they tested it in powder form, and it sure does have a ton of oxygen. My guess is that it's a ceramic.

Oh jeez. I'm actually not sure. The oxide definitely screams "ceramic" now that you mention it. I think I took the one thread mentioning "alloy" along with (the admittedly woo-ish) image of the aircraft skin and brain just stuck on "alloy," which implies "admixture of metals." I might also be thinking of Invar, an alloy with super low CTE.

Scandium, aluminum, and tungsten oxides are all refractory ceramics, so I would reason that their mixed oxide is very similar. But tungsten (IV) oxide is conductive. Shrug, I was an organic chemist.

The bonding structure is shown in the data pdf here[0]. It's a heavily networked orthorhombic lattice and (oof, it's been a hot minute since inorgo class) what looks like lots of coordinate bonds. It's definitely more alloy/ceramic than molecule, which is sort of the GP thread topic, but I can't tell if it's considered an alloy, ceramic, both, or neither.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemmater.1c01007