MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032821324 · doi:10.5539/ijc.v4n2p2

Defect Complexes and Defect Clusters in Mn1-deltaO, Co1-deltaO and Ni1-deltaO Oxides Diagrams of the Concentrations of Point Defects

2012· article· en· W2032821324 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andrzej Stokłosa

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Chemistry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicTransition Metal Oxide Nanomaterials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryStoichiometryCrystallographic defectIonizationWork (physics)CrystallographyIonAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ThermodynamicsPhysical chemistryChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The diagrams of the concentrations of point defects, determined for a series of temperatures, for the oxides: Mn1-deltaO, (1173-1830 K), Co1-deltaO (1223-1673 K) and Ni1-deltaO (1273-1673 K), whilst taking into consideration simple defects and defect clusters of type (2:1), (4:1), (6:2), are presented in this work. A new method was used for the calculations of the diagrams and the results of the studies of the deviation from the stoichiometry obtained by many authors were used in the calculations. The values of DGo of the formation of the individual defects and clusters were determined; their temperature dependencies were also determined. The calculations show that in the studied oxides the maximal concentration of defect clusters is lower than the concentration of single-ionized cation vacancies. At the lowest temperatures studied, the concentration of clusters is comparable to the concentration of electroneutral vacancies. The ratio of these concentration decreases with the temperature increase. The presence of defect clusters only slightly decreases the concentration of cation vacancies. The ratio of the concentrations of defect clusters varies with the temperature. This ratio is different for the individual oxides.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of ChemistrySame topicTransition Metal Oxide NanomaterialsFrench-language works237,207