MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W182108070 · doi:10.1139/p11-061

Modeling of [AlO<sub>4</sub>/Li<sup>+</sup>]<sup>+</sup> paramagnetic defects in α-quartz

2011· article· en· W182108070 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Sanda M. Botis, Yuanming Pan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGlass properties and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsParamagnetismElectron paramagnetic resonanceHyperfine structureAtom (system on chip)PhysicsIonUnpaired electronAb initioQuadrupoleAtomic physicsAb initio quantum chemistry methodsCrystallographic defectCrystallographyNuclear magnetic resonanceCondensed matter physicsChemistryMolecule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two types of [AlO 4 /Li + ] + paramagnetic defects in α-quartz have been detected and quantitatively characterized by previous EPR experiments but remain unclear with respect to structures and formation mechanisms. We have investigated these [AlO 4 /Li + ] + paramagnetic defects in α-quartz by ab initio calculations at the density functional theory (DFT) level, using 72- and 108-atom supercells and all-electron basis sets. Our results show that the Al–Li coupled substitution could give rise to three distinct paramagnetic defects, two of them having the hole located on a short-bonded O atom and one trapping the hole on a long-bonded O atom. The structural models from our calculations are [AlO 4 /Li + (a &lt; )] + , [AlO 4 /Li + (a &gt; )] + , and [AlO 4 /Li + (c small )] + with a &lt; , a &gt; , and c small indicating the position of the Li + ion. Our calculated hyperfine constants and nuclear quadrupole parameters are in agreement with those determined from previous EPR experiments. The present study clarifies the ambiguities related to the structural model of the [AlO 4 /Li] q centre, discovered and proposed by Walsby et al. (Can. J. Phys. 81, 583 (2003)), and eliminates the uncertainties related to the charge of the compensating Li ion. We also suggest an additional paramagnetic defect [AlO 4 /Li + (c small )] + , with the unpaired electron located on a short-bonded O atom and the Li compensator just off the edge of the small channel. However, the structural similarities with the [AlO 4 /Li + (a &gt; )] + defect would require detection and measurement of the 17 O hyperfine structure for an unequivocal EPR identification.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicGlass properties and applicationsFrench-language works237,207