MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093479843 · doi:10.1103/physreve.70.061507

Phase diagram of silica from computer simulation

2004· article· en· W2093479843 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review E · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMaterial Dynamics and Properties
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStishovitePhase diagramCoesiteCALPHADIntersection (aeronautics)Statistical physicsPhase (matter)Gibbs free energyEnergy (signal processing)ThermodynamicsDiagramPotential energyMaterials sciencePhysicsMathematicsGeologyClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We evaluate the phase diagram of the "BKS" potential [Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1955 (1990)]], a model of silica widely used in molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. We conduct MD simulations of the liquid, and three crystals ( beta -quartz, coesite, and stishovite) over wide ranges of temperature and density, and evaluate the total Gibbs free energy of each phase. The phase boundaries are determined by the intersection of these free energy surfaces. Not unexpectedly for a classical pair potential, our results reveal quantitative discrepancies between the locations of the BKS and real silica phase boundaries. At the same time, we find that the topology of the real phase diagram is reproduced, confirming that the BKS model provides a satisfactory qualitative description of a silicalike material. We also compare the phase boundaries with the locations of liquid-state thermodynamic anomalies identified in previous studies of the BKS model.

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 score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.306 · 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