MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069514097 · doi:10.1063/1.3624530

Accurate determination of the Gibbs energy of Cu–Zr melts using the thermodynamic integration method in Monte Carlo simulations

2011· article· en· W2069514097 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Philippe Harvey, Aïmen E. Gheribi, Patrice Chartrand

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMaterial Dynamics and Properties
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermodynamicsMonte Carlo methodThermodynamic integrationGibbs free energyInternal energyWork (physics)Materials scienceStatistical physicsChemistryPhysicsMolecular dynamicsComputational chemistryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The design of multicomponent alloys used in different applications based on specific thermo-physical properties determined experimentally or predicted from theoretical calculations is of major importance in many engineering applications. A procedure based on Monte Carlo simulations (MCS) and the thermodynamic integration (TI) method to improve the quality of the predicted thermodynamic properties calculated from classical thermodynamic calculations is presented in this study. The Gibbs energy function of the liquid phase of the Cu-Zr system at 1800 K has been determined based on this approach. The internal structure of Cu-Zr melts and amorphous alloys at different temperatures, as well as other physical properties were also obtained from MCS in which the phase trajectory was modeled by the modified embedded atom model formalism. A rigorous comparison between available experimental data and simulated thermo-physical properties obtained from our MCS is presented in this work. The modified quasichemical model in the pair approximation was parameterized using the internal structure data obtained from our MCS and the precise Gibbs energy function calculated at 1800 K from the TI method. The predicted activity of copper in Cu-Zr melts at 1499 K obtained from our thermodynamic optimization was corroborated by experimental data found in the literature. The validity of the amplitude of the entropy of mixing obtained from the in silico procedure presented in this work was analyzed based on the thermodynamic description of hard sphere mixtures.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations26
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicMaterial Dynamics and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207