MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089588512 · doi:10.5539/apr.v3n2p171

Comparison of Calculated Work Function of Metals Using Metallic Plasma Model with Stabilized Jellium, Ab-Initio Approach and Experimental Values

2011· article· en· W2089588512 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physics Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal and Thin Film Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJelliumAb initioMaterials scienceWork functionCrystalliteTransition metalAb initio quantum chemistry methodsPlasmaMetalWork (physics)Atomic physicsThermodynamicsChemistryPhysicsMetallurgyMoleculeQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The work function of metals was calculated using the metallic plasma model (MPM). The results obtained were compared with the available results of the stabilized jellium model (SJM), Ab-initio model and the experimental values. Result shows that the stabilized jellium model was in good agreement with experimental values for the simple metals, the transition, inner transition and rare-earth metals. The metallic plasma model gave results that are agreeable with experimental values for most of the metals especially the polycrystalline metals. The ab-initio results were higher than experimental values except for Ba, Ca and Sr, this shows that the metallic plasma model is more reliable in predicting the work function of metals.

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.

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 score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.245
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.100 · 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