MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092424049 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1120243109

Stability of dense liquid carbon dioxide

2012· article· en· W2092424049 on OpenAlexafffund
Brian Boates, A. M. Teweldeberhan, Stanimir Bonev

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersWestern Canada Research Grid
KeywordsPhase diagramTriple pointMelting pointPhase transitionThermodynamicsAb initioMantle (geology)Materials scienceChemistryPhase (matter)PhysicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present ab initio calculations of the phase diagram of liquid CO(2) and its melting curve over a wide range of pressure and temperature conditions, including those relevant to the Earth. Several distinct liquid phases are predicted up to 200 GPa and 10,000 K based on their structural and electronic characteristics. We provide evidence for a first-order liquid-liquid phase transition with a critical point near 48 GPa and 3,200 K that intersects the mantle geotherm; a liquid-liquid-solid triple point is predicted near 45 GPa and 1,850 K. Unlike known first-order transitions between thermodynamically stable liquids, the coexistence of molecular and polymeric CO(2) phases predicted here is not accompanied by metallization. The absence of an electrical anomaly would be unique among known liquid-liquid transitions. Furthermore, the previously suggested phase separation of CO(2) into its constituent elements at lower mantle conditions is examined by evaluating their Gibbs free energies. We find that liquid CO(2) does not decompose into carbon and oxygen up to at least 200 GPa and 10,000 K.

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)0.002
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 score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations45
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207