MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Electron band structure of the high pressure cubic phase of AlH<sub>3</sub>

2012· article· en· W2032353144 on OpenAlexaff
Hongliang Shi, Niliffar Zarifi, Wai‐Leung Yim, John S. Tse

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicHydrogen Storage and Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCondensed matter physicsElectronic band structureConductorBand gapLocal-density approximationHybrid functionalPhase (matter)Materials scienceElectronic structureFermi levelMetalDensity functional theorySuperconductivityRange (aeronautics)Density of statesDirect and indirect band gapsElectronChemistryComputational chemistryPhysicsMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The electronic band structure of the cubic Pm3n phase of AlH3 stable above 100 GPa is examined with semi-local, Tran-Blaha modified Becke-Johnson local density approximation (TB-mBJLDA), screened hybrid density functionals and GW methods. The shift of the conduction band to higher energy with increasing pressure is predicted by all methods. However, there are significant differences in detail band structure. In the pressure range from 90 to160 GPa, semi-local, hybrid functional and TB-mBJLDA calculations predicted that AlH3 is a poor metal. In comparison, GW calculations show a gap opening at 160 GPa and AlH3 becomes a small gap semi-conductor. From the trends of the calculated band shifts, it can be concluded that the favourable conditions leading to the nesting of Fermi surfaces predicted by semi-local calculation have disappeared if the exchange term is included. The results highlight the importance of the correction to the exchange energy on the band structure of hydrogen dominant dense metal hydrides at high pressure hydrides and may help to rationalize the absence of superconductivity in AlH3 from experimental measurements.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicHydrogen Storage and MaterialsFrench-language works237,207