MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Relationships between composition and properties of (Cr/Ti)SiN and (Cr/Ti)CN alloys: an<i>ab initio</i>study

2009· article· en· W2086869398 on OpenAlexaff
Jiří Houška, J.E. Klemberg-Sapieha, L. Martinů

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Condensed Matter · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal and Thin Film Mechanics
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceTernary operationOrthorhombic crystal systemTinLattice constantBulk modulusShear modulusNitrideMetalSolid solutionTitaniumModulusCrystallographyThermodynamicsCrystal structureMetallurgyComposite materialChemistryDiffraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has previously been noted that different fcc metal nitrides exhibit different superior properties, including the high hardness of TiN and the excellent corrosion and oxidation resistance of CrN. Si and C have been added into such metal nitrides in order to tailor their functional properties. Contrary to the intensively studied TiSiN and TiCN nanocomposite and solid solution systems, much less is known about the complex relationships between the composition and the properties of CrSiN and CrCN. In fact, there is a qualitative difference between cubic spin-unpolarized materials such as TiN, and spin-polarized materials such as CrN which may exhibit a cubic/orthorhombic structural transformation. In the present work, we report ab initio calculations of the properties of (Cr/Ti)SiN and (Cr/Ti)CN systems of various compositions. We specifically predict the lattice constant, bulk modulus, elastic tensor, shear modulus, Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio, magnetization, electronic structure and preference towards the cubic/orthorhombic structural transformation. Knowledge of the modeled relationships allows one to tailor the material characteristics of various ternary metal nitrides for different technological applications.

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 score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Condensed MatterSame topicMetal and Thin Film MechanicsFrench-language works237,207