MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989128885 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.85.125405

Direct proof of mesoscopic misfit in nanoscale islands by x-ray absorption spectroscopy

2012· article· en· W1989128885 on OpenAlexaff
H. L. Meyerheim, E. D. Crozier, R. A. Gordon, Qun‐Ying Xiao, K. Mohseni, N. N. Negulyaev, V. S. Stepanyuk, J. Kirschner

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review B · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic properties of thin films
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsMesoscopic physicsMaterials scienceNanoscopic scaleAbsorption (acoustics)MonolayerAbsorption spectroscopyCondensed matter physicsSpectroscopySubstrate (aquarium)PhysicsMolecular physicsCrystallographyOpticsChemistryNanotechnologyQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polarization-dependent extended x-ray-absorption fine-structure measurements above the Co-K absorption edge were carried out to experimentally prove the theoretically predicted contraction of interatomic distances in nanoscale Co islands ($\ensuremath{\oslash}\ensuremath{\approx}1$ nm) on Cu(001). Within the Co islands of thickness one monolayer (ML) which were deposited at 160 K substrate temperature, we find an in-plane Co-Co distance of $2.45\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.02$ \AA{}, significantly shorter than in bulk Co (2.51 \AA{}) and in close agreement with theoretical predictions. The effective in-plane coordination number ${N}_{\mathrm{Co}}^{*}(\ensuremath{\parallel})$ is equal to $3.2\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.5$ and $5.0\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.7$ (${N}^{*}=6$ for an infinite island) for samples covered by 0.3 and 0.7 MLs of Co, respectively. The low value for the 0.3 ML sample is related to the finite island size and to about 20$%$ of the intermixing between the adsorbate and substrate atoms. The experimental results are supported by molecular dynamics calculations.

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 score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.805

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review BSame topicMagnetic properties of thin filmsFrench-language works237,207