MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053997479 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.72.014455

fcc antiferromagnetic Ising model in a uniform external field solved by mean-field theory

2005· article· en· W2053997479 on OpenAlexaff
A. D. Beath, D. H. Ryan

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review B · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTheoretical and Computational Physics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntiferromagnetismPhase diagramReentrancyCondensed matter physicsIsing modelSpinsPhysicsMean field theoryField (mathematics)TetrahedronField theory (psychology)Phase (matter)DiagramQuantum mechanicsMathematical physicsMathematicsStatisticsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fcc antiferromagnetic Ising model with nearest-neighbor interactions in a uniform external field is studied using a simple mean-field theory, and a phase diagram is presented. Our theory is formulated in the spirit of a Weiss-like molecular field theory: Four spins forming a basic tetrahedron are allowed to fluctuate while the surrounding 28 spins take mean-field values. The phase diagram is similar to that obtained in the Bragg-Williams approximation for chemical ordering of ${\mathrm{Cu}}_{1\ensuremath{-}x}{\mathrm{Au}}_{x}$ alloys, although apart from the similar phase diagrams, the two theories give substantially different results. First, all of the detected transitions are correctly predicted to be first order. Second, we obtain two previously undetected reentrant phases. The existence of reentrant phases is discussed and we show that this ordering scenario is fully consistent with the results of the Bragg-Williams approximation which does not contain reentrant phases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations20
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review BSame topicTheoretical and Computational PhysicsFrench-language works237,207