MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129324241 · doi:10.3390/e15093810

Entropies in Alloy Design for High-Entropy and Bulk Glassy Alloys

2013· article· en· W2129324241 on OpenAlexaff
A. Takeuchi, Kenji Amiya, Takeshi Wada, Kunio Yubuta, Zhang We, Akihiro Makino

Bibliographic record

VenueEntropy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh Entropy Alloys Studies
Canadian institutionsHatch (Canada)
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsAmorphous metalThermodynamicsEntropy of mixingTernary operationMaterials scienceEnthalpyAlloyHigh entropy alloysConfiguration entropyAtomic radiusAmorphous solidEntropy (arrow of time)Enthalpy of mixingMetallurgyCrystallographyPhysicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-entropy (H-E) alloys, bulk metallic glasses (BMGs) and high-entropy BMGs (HE-BMGs) were statistically analyzed with the help of a database of ternary amorphous alloys. Thermodynamic quantities corresponding to heat of mixing and atomic size differences were calculated as a function of composition of the multicomponent alloys. Actual calculations were performed for configurational entropy (Sconfig.) in defining the H-E alloys and mismatch entropy (Ss) normalized with Boltzmann constant (kB), together with mixing enthalpy (DHmix) based on Miedema’s empirical model and Delta parameter (d) as a corresponding parameter to Ss/kB. The comparison between DHmix–d and DHmix– diagrams for the ternary amorphous alloys revealed Ss/kB ~ (d /22)2. The zones S, S′ and B’s where H-E alloys with disordered solid solutions, ordered alloys and BMGs are plotted in the DHmix–d diagram are correlated with the areas in the DHmix – Ss /kB diagram. The results provide mutual understandings among H-E alloys, BMGs and HE-BMGs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations137
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEntropySame topicHigh Entropy Alloys StudiesFrench-language works237,207