M$ouml$ssbauer and transport studies of amorphous and icosahedral Zr-Ni-Cu-Ag-Al alloys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The alloy Zr 65 Al 7.5 Ni 10 Cu 7.3 Fe 0.2 Ag 10 in the amorphous and icosahedral states, and the bulk amorphous alloy Zr 65 Al 7.5 Ni 10 Cu 7.5 Ag 10 , have been studied with 57 Fe Mössbauer spectroscopy, electrical resistance and magnetoresistance techniques. The average quadrupole splitting in both alloys decreases with temperature as T 3/2 . The average quadrupole splitting in the icosahedral alloy is the largest ever reported for a metallic system. The lattice vibrations of the Fe atoms in the amorphous and icosahedral alloys are well described by a simple Debye model, with the characteristic Mössbauer temperatures of 379(29) and 439(28) K, respectively. Amorphous alloys Zr 65 Al 7.5 Ni 10 Cu 7.5 Ag 10 and Zr 65 Al 7.5 Ni 10 Cu 7.3 Fe 0.2 Ag 10 have been found to be superconducting with the transition temperature, T c , of about 1.7 K. The magnitude of T c and the critical field slope at T c are in agreement with previous work on Zr-based amorphous superconductors, while the low-temperature normal state resistivity is larger than typical results for binary and ternary Zr-based alloys. The resistivity of icosahedral Zr 65 Al 7.5 Ni 10 Cu 7.3 Fe 0.2 Ag 10 is larger than that for the amorphous ribbon of the same composition, as inferred both from direct measurements on the ribbons and from the observed magnetoresistance. However the icosahedral sample is non-superconducting in the measurement range down to 1.5 K. The results for the resistivity and the superconducting T c both suggest a stronger electronic disorder in the icosahedral phase than in the amorphous phase.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".