MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030599528 · doi:10.1063/1.4794360

Temperature and pressure dependent geometry optimization and elastic constant calculations for arbitrary symmetry crystals: Applications to MgSiO3 perovskites

2013· article· en· W2030599528 on OpenAlexaff
Bin Wen, Tian-Jiao Shao, Roderick Melnik, Yoshiyuki Kawazoe, Yongjun Tian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsHatch (Canada)Wilfrid Laurier University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsOrthorhombic crystal systemLattice constantLattice energySymmetry (geometry)Lattice (music)Work (physics)Crystal (programming language)Energy minimizationThermodynamicsMaterials scienceGibbs free energyCrystal structureCondensed matter physicsChemistryPhysicsGeometryComputational chemistryDiffractionCrystallographyMathematicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To optimize lattice parameters for arbitrary symmetry crystals under high temperature and high pressure conditions, a new “geometry optimization method for arbitrary symmetry crystals” has been proposed in this work. By minimizing non-equilibrium Gibbs energy functions for a series of deformed crystal configurations, the components of deformation tensors have been obtained, and allowing the optimized crystal lattice parameters to be determined. Based on our method and Zhao's method, a new method for calculating high temperature and high pressure elastic constants in arbitrary symmetry crystals has been deduced. To verify the effectiveness of the new method, the high temperature and high pressure lattice parameters and elastic constants of orthorhombic symmetry MgSiO3 pv have been studied, and a good agreement between calculated and experimental results has been obtained.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.209
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations28
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207