The first coordination number for liquid metals
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
A simple and absolute method for the calculation of the first coordination number for any pure, isotropic liquid element is presented. The liquid density and the position for the first peak of the radial distribution function, assumed to be the atomic diameter, are the only parameters required. The coordination number for liquid metals that exhibit a BCC (body-centred cube) solid structure averages 7.4 while the first coordination number for liquid metals with a FCC (face-centred cube) or CPH (close-packed hexagonal) solid structure averages 7.1. Those liquid elements that have less closed-packed solid structures have a first coordination number less than 7.0. The calculation also correctly predicts the first coordination number for liquid Se to be 2.4, consistent with its chain-like structure. The calculated values for the liquid element coordination numbers are consistent with the decrease in density of a few percent that occurs upon melting and appear to be related to the EngelBrewer valence of the solid, which suggests that the electron structure of the solid may be retained upon melting. The first coordination numbers for liquid Ge and Si were calculated to be 5.0 and 4.7, respectively, larger than the value of 4.0 for solid structures. The increase in coordination number upon melting accounts for the increase in density of Ge and Si that occurs upon melting.PACS No.: 61.20.Gy
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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