Site Preference of Metal Atoms in Gd<sub>5–</sub><i>xMxTt</i><sub>4</sub> (<i>M</i> = Zr, Hf; <i>Tt</i> = Si, Ge)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Zirconium and hafnium were incorporated into the Gd5Ge4 and Gd5Si4 parent compounds in order to study the metal‐site occupation in the M5X4 magnetocaloric phases (M = metals; X = p elements) family. The Gd5–xZrxGe4 phases adopt the orthorhombic Sm5Ge4‐type (space group Pnma) structure for x ≤ 1.49 and the tetragonal Zr5Si4‐type (P41212) structure for x ≥ 1.77. The Gd5–xHfxSi4 compounds crystallize in the orthorhombic Gd5Si4‐type (Pnma) structure forx ≤ 0.41 and the Zr5Si4‐type structure for x ≥ 0.7. In both systems, single‐crystal X‐ray diffraction reveals that the Zr/Hf atoms preferentially occupy the slab‐surface M2 and slab‐center M3 sites, both of which have a significantly larger Zr/Hf population than the slab‐surface M1 site. The metal‐site preference, i.e. the coloring problem on the three metal sites, is discussed considering geometric and electronic effects of the local coordination environments. The analysis of the metal‐site occupation in Gd5–xZrxGe4 and Gd5–xHfxSi4 as well as other metal‐substituted M5X4 systems suggests that both geometric and electronic effects can be used to explain the metal‐site occupation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".