MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085841794 · doi:10.1139/p02-071

Pure ices IV and XII from high-density amorphous ice

2003· article· en· W2085841794 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christoph G. Salzmann, Ingrid Kohl, Thomas Loerting, E. Mayer, Andreas Hallbrucker

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMaterial Dynamics and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmorphous iceAmorphous solidCrystallizationPhysicsThermodynamicsBar (unit)Analytical Chemistry (journal)CrystallographyChemistryMeteorologyChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-density amorphous ice (HDA), made by compression of hexagonal ice at 77 K, was heated at a constant pressure of 0.81 GPa up to 183 K and its phase transition followed by displacement-temperature curves. The crystalline phases, recovered at 77 K and 1 bar, were characterized by X-ray diffraction. Pure D2O ice IV and nearly pure H2O ice IV were formed on slow heating at a rate of 0.4 K min–1, whereas pure H2O ice XII and D2O ice XII were formed on fast heating at [Formula: see text] 15 K min–1. On heating HDA at rates in between these two values a mixture of ice IV and ice XII was obtained, where their relative yields depended in a systematic manner on the heating rate. Conversion of HDA into either ice IV or ice XII is an example of a "parallel reaction" where the relative yields of ice IV and ice XII can be controlled by temperature, i.e., by the rate of heating, in our approach. It is conceivable that a similar behaviour occurs on crystallization of the related pressure-amorphized silica. PACS Nos.: 61.10-i, 64.60-i, 64.70-p

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations42
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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