MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989509506 · doi:10.1115/imece2010-38841

Size Effects in Green-Kubo and Direct Method Molecular Dynamics Predictions of Thermal Conductivity

2010· article· en· W1989509506 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel P. Sellan, E. S. Landry, Joseph E. Turney, Alan J. H. McGaughey, Cristina H. Amon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicThermal properties of materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsExtrapolationThermal conductivityPhononMolecular dynamicsThermalStatistical physicsSiliconLattice (music)Materials sciencePhysicsCondensed matter physicsThermodynamicsMathematicsQuantum mechanicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The bulk thermal conductivity of Lennard-Jones argon and Stillinger-Weber silicon is predicted using the Green-Kubo (GK) and direct methods in classical molecular dynamics simulations. While system-size independent thermal conductivities can be obtained with less than 1000 atoms for both materials using the GK method, the linear extrapolation procedure [Schelling et al. Phys. Rev. B 65, 144306 (2002)] must be applied to direct method results for multiple system sizes. It is found that applying the linear extrapolation procedure in a manner consistent with previous researchers can lead to an underprediction of the GK thermal conductivity (e.g., by a factor of 2.5 for Stillinger-Weber silicon at a temperature of 500 K). To understand this discrepancy, phonon properties are predicted from lattice dynamics calculations, and from these, length-dependent thermal conductivities. These results show that the linear extrapolation procedure is only accurate when the minimum system size used in the direct method simulations is comparable to the largest mean free paths of the phonons that dominate the thermal transport. This condition has not typically been satisfied in previous works.

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)0.001
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicThermal properties of materialsFrench-language works237,207