MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090264454 · doi:10.1103/physreve.84.021501

Mechanical relaxation and the notion of time-dependent extent of ergodicity during the glass transition

2011· article· en· W2090264454 on OpenAlexaff
G. P. Johari

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review E · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMaterial Dynamics and Properties
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsErgodicityResidual entropyThermodynamicsEntropy (arrow of time)Statistical physicsErgodic theoryRelaxation (psychology)Spectral lineGlass transitionConfiguration entropyMaterials sciencePhysicsMathematicsNuclear magnetic resonanceMathematical analysisQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A postulate that ergodicity and entropy continuously decrease to zero on cooling a liquid to a glassy state was used to support the view that glass has no residual entropy, and the features of mechanical relaxation spectra were cited as proof for the decrease. We investigate whether such spectra and the relaxation isochrones can serve as the proof. We find that an increase in the real component of elastic moduli with an increase in spectral frequency does not indicate continuous loss of ergodicity and entropy, and the spectra do not confirm isothermal glass transition or loss of entropy. Variation in ergodicity and entropy with the spectral frequency has untenable consequences for both thermodynamics and molecular dynamics and implies that, despite a broad distribution of its relaxation times, an equilibrium liquid can be considered as always ergodic. Perturbation from equilibrium used to obtain a spectrum does not have the effect of dynamic freezing and unfreezing, and Maxwell-Voigt models for the mechanical response function have neither the characteristic irreversibility of liquid-glass transition nor are commutable to ergodicity or entropy.

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)0.001
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ESame topicMaterial Dynamics and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207