MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093590401 · doi:10.1063/1.1406555

Electronic transport in Cd–Yb and Y–Mg–Zn quasicrystals

2001· article· en· W2093590401 on OpenAlexaff
A. L. Pope, Terry M. Tritt, R. Gagnon, J. O. Ström‐Olsen

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physics Letters · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicQuasicrystal Structures and Properties
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuasicrystalMaterials scienceSeebeck coefficientElectrical resistivity and conductivityCondensed matter physicsDebye modelThermal conductivityHall effectCharge carrierThermoelectric effectAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electronic transport properties of the stable binary Cd5.7Yb quasicrystal and a quasicrystal in the Y–Mg–Zn family is presented. Electrical conductivity in these systems is an order of magnitude higher than other quasicrystals, resulting in larger thermal conductivity values due to enhanced electronic contributions (λE=L0σT). Room temperature Hall measurements provide a charge carrier density of 2.3×1021 and 3.1×1020 cm−3 in Cd5.7Yb and Y–Mg–Zn, respectively, indicating these materials have a higher carrier concentration and are better conductors than other quasicrystalline counterparts. Thermoelectric power in both Cd5.7Yb and Y–Mg–Zn have relatively small magnitudes (16 and 8 μV/K, respectively). Despite many similarities between these two systems, low temperature specific heat reveals a low Debye temperature in Cd5.7Yb(140 K) while the Debye temperature of Y–Mg–Zn and other quasicrystals is at least twice as large. Consequences of the electrical transport in these systems will be discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations42
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physics LettersSame topicQuasicrystal Structures and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207