MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081415816 · doi:10.1063/1.2902412

Thermodynamic analysis and phase field modeling of domain structures in bilayer ferroelectric thin films

2008· article· en· W2081415816 on OpenAlexaff
A. Artemev, B. Geddes, Julia Slutsker, A. Roytburd

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicFerroelectric and Piezoelectric Materials
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFerroelectricityBilayerCondensed matter physicsDielectricPolarization (electrochemistry)Phase transitionHysteresisMaterials scienceField (mathematics)CoercivityPhase (matter)ChemistryPhysicsOptoelectronicsPhysical chemistryMembrane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The domain structure in bilayer ferroelectric films was studied by using an analytical thermodynamic theory and computer simulations utilizing the phase field model. It is demonstrated that in a low applied field, a self-poled state can be produced in a bilayer film with one layer in a polydomain state and the other layer in a single-domain state. The presence of the layer with a polydomain structure results in a higher dielectric constant and lower coercive field as compared to a bilayer in a single-domain state. The increase in the applied field results in the transition to a single-domain state in the whole bilayer. The thermodynamic potentials of the layers and the energies of electrostatic and elastic interactions determine the critical fields which can control the transitions between single-domain and polydomain states as well as polarization switching of bilayers. Different thermodynamic hysteresis loops are obtained depending on the relationship between these critical fields and the amplitude of the applied ac field. The phase field model of the domain structure produces results that confirm main predictions of the analytical theory.

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)0.000
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 score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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