Search for Dislocation Free Helium 4 Crystals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The giant plasticity of [Formula: see text]He crystals has been explained as a consequence of the large mobility of their dislocations. Thus, the mechanical properties of dislocation free crystals should be quite different from those of usual ones. In 1996-1998, Ruutu et al. published crystal growth studies showing that, in their helium 4 crystals, the density of screw dislocations along the c-axis was less than 100 per cm[Formula: see text], sometimes zero. We have grown helium 4 crystals using similar growth speeds and temperatures, and extracted their dislocation density from their mechanical properties. We found dislocation densities that are in the range of 10[Formula: see text]-10[Formula: see text] per cm[Formula: see text], that is several orders of magnitude larger than Ruutu et al. Our tentative interpretation of this apparent contradiction is that the two types of measurements are somewhat indirect and concern different types of dislocations. As for the dislocation nucleation mechanism, it remains to be understood.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".