Defect Complexes and Defect Clusters in Mn1-deltaO, Co1-deltaO and Ni1-deltaO Oxides Diagrams of the Concentrations of Point Defects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".