Composition, structure, bonding and thermoelectric properties of “CuT<sub>2</sub>P<sub>3</sub>” and “CuT<sub>4</sub>P<sub>3</sub>”, members of the T<sub>1−x</sub>(CuP<sub>3</sub>)<sub>x</sub>series with T being Si and Ge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through electron microprobe analysis, X-ray and neutron diffraction, it has been established that "CuT(2)P(3)" and "CuT(4)P(3)" (T = Si, Ge) adopt the cubic or tetragonally distorted zinc blende structures in which two element mixtures are present on both atomic sites. One site contains the Cu/T mixture while the other site is occupied by T and P. The structure of "CuT(2)P(3)" and "CuT(4)P(3)" can be derived from that of silicon or germanium, in which the single Si or Ge site is broken into two independent sites by the preferential Cu and P substitution. The phases appear to be members of the extended series with a general formula of T(1-x)(CuP(3))(x). The Cu-P ratio of 1 : 3 provides 4 e(-) per atom and optimizes the atomic interactions. Thermoelectric performance of "CuSi(2)P(3)", "CuGe(2)P(3)" and "CuGe(4)P(3)" was evaluated from low temperatures to 400 K through resistivity, Seebeck coefficient and thermal conductivity measurements. The Ge-containing phases show a metallic-type behaviour and "CuSi(2)P(3)" is semiconducting with a narrow band gap. The ZT values are bigger for the Ge-containing phases and reach values of 8.49 x 10(-3) for "CuGe(2)P(3)" and 1.09 x 10(-2) for "CuGe(4)P(3)" at room temperature.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".