A Theoretical Study on Growth Patterns of Ni-Doped Germanium Clusters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ni-doped germanium clusters have been systematically investigated by using the density functional approach. The growth-pattern behaviors, stabilities, charge transfer, and polarities of these clusters are discussed in detail. Obviously different growth patterns appear between small-sized Ni-doped germanium clusters and middle- or larger-sized Ni-doped germanium clusters. The Ni-convex or substituted Ge(n) frames for small-sized clusters as well as Ni-concaved or encapsulated Ge(n) frames for middle- or large-sized clusters are dominant growth patterns. The calculated fragmentation energies manifest that the magic numbers of stabilities are 5, 8, 10, and 13 for Ni-doped germanium clusters; the obtained relative stabilities exhibit that the Ni-encapsulated Ge(10) cluster is the most stable species of all different-sized clusters, which is in good agreement with available experimental observations of CoGe(10)(-). Natural population analysis shows that different charge-transfer phenomena depend on the sizes of the Ni-doped Ge(n) clusters. Additionally, the properties of frontier orbitals and the polarities of Ni-doped Ge(n) clusters are also discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".