MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989372159 · doi:10.1063/1.4803216

Competitive freezing in gold nanoparticles

2013· article· en· W1989372159 on OpenAlexaff
Cletus C. Asuquo, Richard K. Bowles

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicnanoparticles nucleation surface interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcosahedral symmetryCluster (spacecraft)Chemical physicsNanoparticleCrystallographyMolecular dynamicsMaterials scienceTetrahedronGold clusterCubic crystal systemColloidal goldNanotechnologyChemistryComputational chemistryElectronic structure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use molecular dynamics simulations to study the freezing of gold nanoparticles in a size range of N = 309-923 gold atoms and find the clusters freeze to a variety of structures, including icosahedra, decahedra and face-centered cubic type structures. Measurements of the rate of freezing for the different structures reveal that the icosahedral clusters form an order ofmagnitude faster than the remaining structures over the entire range of cluster sizes studied. An analysis of the structural evolution of the icosahedral and decahedral clusters during freezing events suggests that, despite the vast difference in freezing rates, the two structures both initially form the same five-fold symmetric cap, constructed from tetrahedral sub-units of face-centered cubic packed atoms. The slow rate of decahedron freezing may be caused introduction of strain into the structure as it grows along the five-fold symmetric axis of the cluster and the need to form high energy 〈100〉 facets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP conference proceedingsSame topicnanoparticles nucleation surface interactionsFrench-language works237,207