MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124846602 · doi:10.1111/jace.13338

Effect of Grain Boundaries on the Lattice Thermal Transport Properties of Insulating Materials: A Predictive Model

2014· article· en· W2124846602 on OpenAlexafffund
Aïmen E. Gheribi, Patrice Chartrand

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Ceramic Society · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicThermal properties of materials
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsThermal conductivityGrain sizeCondensed matter physicsPhononMaterials scienceDebye modelLattice (music)DebyeGrain boundaryThermalScatteringFormalism (music)Thermal conductionPhonon scatteringMicrostructureThermodynamicsPhysicsComposite materialOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present two theoretical models to predict the lattice thermal conductivity degradation of insulating materials at high temperature (above one‐third of the Debye temperature). This degradation is due to the presence of grains, with known sizes and shapes, inducing thermal resistance at their boundaries. The first model is derived directly from the kinetic theory of gases (KTG). The formulation of the second is based on a localized continuum model (LCM), assuming phonon Umklapp scattering and the Debye approximation of phonon density of state. The two proposed models are purely predictive, as no experimental information related to the grain size dependence of the thermal conductivity is necessary for the parameterization of the models. The predictive accuracy of the two proposed models is tested on several different types of electrically insulating compounds. Although the model derived from the KTG is similar to the well‐known Kapitza thermal resistance formalism, it fails to predict the grain size dependence of the lattice thermal conductivity. The one derived from a LCM is a new formalism predicting, with good accuracy, the lattice thermal conductivity as a function of the average grain size. It is applicable for microstructures with a grain size typically above 20–50 nm.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations24
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Ceramic SocietySame topicThermal properties of materialsFrench-language works237,207