MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054488856 · doi:10.1063/1.4798391

A statistical model approximation for perovskite solid-solutions: A Raman study of lead-zirconate-titanate single crystal

2013· article· en· W2054488856 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicFerroelectric and Piezoelectric Materials
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhase transitionPerovskite (structure)Phase boundaryCrystal (programming language)FerroelectricityRaman scatteringPhase (matter)Single crystal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lead titanate (PbTiO3) is a classical example of a ferroelectric perovskite oxide illustrating a displacive phase transition accompanied by softening of a symmetry-breaking mode. The underlying assumption justifying the soft-mode theory is that the crystal is macroscopically sufficiently uniform that a meaningful free energy function can be formed. In contrast to PbTiO3, experimental studies show that the phase transition behaviour of lead-zirconate-titanate solid solution (PZT) is far more subtle. Most of the studies on the PZT system have been dedicated to ceramic or powder samples, in which case an unambiguous soft-mode study is not possible, as modes with different symmetries appear together. Our Raman scattering study on titanium-rich PZT single crystal shows that the phase transitions in PZT cannot be described by a simple soft-mode theory. In strong contrast to PbTiO3, splitting of transverse E-symmetry modes reveals that there are different locally ordered regions. The role of crystal defects, random distribution of Ti and Zr at the B-cation site and Pb ions shifted away from their ideal positions, dictates the phase transition mechanism. A statistical model explaining the observed peak splitting and phase transformation to a complex state with spatially varying local order in the vicinity of the morphotropic phase boundary is given.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations40
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicFerroelectric and Piezoelectric MaterialsFrench-language works237,207