MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064306087 · doi:10.1063/1.4876220

Carbon tetrachloride under extreme conditions

2014· article· en· W2064306087 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael Pravica, Daniel Sneed, Yonggang Wang, Quinlan Smith, Garimella V. Subrahmanyam

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsCanadian Light Source (Canada)University of Saskatchewan
FundersNational Research Council CanadaWestern Economic Diversification CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsCarbon tetrachlorideRaman spectroscopySynchrotronTetrachlorideCCL4Phase (matter)IrradiationDiffractionInfrared spectroscopyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)DecompositionChemistryX-ray crystallographyMaterials sciencePhysicsEnvironmental chemistryOrganic chemistryOpticsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on three experiments on carbon tetrachloride subjected to extreme conditions. In the first experiment, Raman spectra of CCl4 were acquired up to 28 GPa. Evidence was observed for at least two new phases of CCl4 above 14 GPa (phase VI) and above 22 GPa (phase VII). Decompression of the sample showed no evidence of pressure-induced decomposition. In the second experiment, a synchrotron x-ray diffraction study was performed up to 30 GPa verifying phase V and potential phases above 14 (VI) and 22 GPa (VII), respectively. In the third study, we examined irradiated CCl4 using synchrotron infrared spectroscopy to reduce fluorescent contamination. Some sort of carbon allotrope appears as a byproduct suggesting the following reaction with hard x-rays: CCl4+ hν → C + 2Cl2.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207