MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1826023000 · doi:10.1139/p2012-038

Optical and electronic properties of RuO<sub>2</sub> from first principles

2012· article· en· W1826023000 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhenqing Yang, J. Li, Xinlu Cheng, Yang Xiang-Dong

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicCatalysis and Oxidation Reactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsCondensed matter physicsTheoretical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The systematic trends of electronic structure and optical properties of RuO 2 consisting of its four phases have been studied by using norm-conserving pseudopotential within the generalized gradient approximation for the exchange–correlation potential. The total density of states (DOS) and energy band structure investigations revealed that the fluorite phase possesses the broadest conduction bandwidth (0–30 eV) and the pyrite phase possesses the narrowest conduction bandwidth (0–5 eV). Study on partial DOS we found that O 2p electrons of the fluorite phase present a significant shift towards the Fermi level and Ru s and p electrons of the rutile phase contribute little to the orbital energy level formation. For the first time, we found that the norm-conserving pseudopotential failed to obtain the normal DOS and energy band distributions for a rutile Ru atom below about –40 eV, whereas such missing electronic distributions could be obtained successfully using an ultrasoft pseudo potential. Investigations on the optical properties further found that the rutile and CaCl 2 -type phases behave more similarly and the fluorite phase shows the most sensitive response in the whole radiation reaction region. The electron energy loss function revealed that the pyrite phase corresponds to the least relative intensity.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicCatalysis and Oxidation ReactionsFrench-language works237,207