Prediction on the Surface Phase Diagram and Growth Morphology of Nanocrystal Ruthenium Dioxide
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surface energy has an important role in controlling the exposed facets and growth morphology of nanocrystals. In this study, we employed first‐principle thermodynamic modeling and calculations to evaluate the substantial effects of environmental factors (temperature and oxygen partial pressure), on the surface structure, stability, and nanocrystal morphology of rutile‐type ruthenium dioxide ( RuO 2 ). Both stoichiometric and nonstoichiometric surfaces with ideal bulk terminations were assessed. The relative ordering of stoichiometric surface stabilities was predicted as (110) > (101) > (100) > (001). The sensitive environment dependence of nonstoichiometric surface stabilities was evaluated by calculating the surface phase diagram, and partially validated by comparing with available experimental observations. The predicted surface stabilities were further coupled with the Gibbs–Wulff construction of equilibrium crystal shape, to predict the morphological evolutions of RuO 2 nanocrystals under practical growth conditions. A morphology‐controlled growth technique was finally suggested for designing and developing hierarchical nanostructures by intelligently adjusting the thermodynamic growth conditions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it