MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964510953 · doi:10.1063/1.1523911

Stability of ice XII relative to ice V and ice VI at high pressures

2002· article· en· W1964510953 on OpenAlexafffund
G. P. Johari

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMaterial Dynamics and Properties
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMetastabilityAmorphous iceGibbs free energyChemistryThermodynamicsCrystallographyPhysicsAmorphous solid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Gibbs energy difference between ice XII and ice V and between ice XII and ice VI at high pressures has been estimated in their fully orientationally disordered states from the available data. The Gibbs energy of ice XII is 183 J/mol higher than that of ice V at 0.5 GPa, and therefore ice XII is metastable with respect to ice V. The Gibbs energy of ice XII is 180–475 J/mol higher than that of ice VI at 1.1 GPa and 100 K. This is inconsistent with the recent deduction [T. Loerting, I. Kohl, C. Salzmann, E. Mayer, and A. Hallbrucker, J. Chem. Phys. 116, 3171 (2002)] that ice VI in the range 0.7–1.5 GPa and 158–212 K is metastable with respect to XII, and also with the speculation that proton (or orientationally)-ordered ice XII could have formed in Johari and Whalley’s [J. Chem. Phys. 70, 2094 (1979)] search for orientationally ordered ice VI. An examination of the available dielectric data and Raman spectral features show no indication of ice VI to ice XII transformation at high pressures. Therefore, ice VI, not ice XII, is the stable phase at ≈1 GPa and in the 158–212 K range. Ice polymorphs coexist in a thermoelastic equilibrium when the strain energy increase at the two-phase interface of the crystals growing in the parent phase becomes equal to the Gibbs energy decrease resulting from the growth. Hence a multiplicity of phases may coexist at high pressures.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations23
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicMaterial Dynamics and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207