MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141794325 · doi:10.1017/s1431927607070900

New Techniques for the Analysis of Fine-Scaled Clustering Phenomena within Atom Probe Tomography (APT) Data

2007· article· en· W2141794325 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Leigh T. Stephenson, Michael P. Moody, Peter V. Liddicoat, Simon P. Ringer

Bibliographic record

VenueMicroscopy and Microanalysis · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Materials Characterization Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of SydneyAustralian Research CouncilOntario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry
KeywordsCluster analysisRandomnessAtom probeComputer scienceAlgorithmLinkage (software)Core (optical fiber)Correlation clusteringData miningStatistical physicsArtificial intelligenceMathematicsMaterials sciencePhysicsChemistryNanotechnologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nanoscale atomic clusters in atom probe tomographic data are not universally defined but instead are characterized by the clustering algorithm used and the parameter values controlling the algorithmic process. A new core-linkage clustering algorithm is developed, combining fundamental elements of the conventional maximum separation method with density-based analyses. A key improvement to the algorithm is the independence of algorithmic parameters inherently unified in previous techniques, enabling a more accurate analysis to be applied across a wider range of material systems. Further, an objective procedure for the selection of parameters based on approximating the data with a model of complete spatial randomness is developed and applied. The use of higher nearest neighbor distributions is highlighted to give insight into the nature of the clustering phenomena present in a system and to generalize the clustering algorithms used to analyze it. Maximum separation, density-based scanning, and the core linkage algorithm, developed within this study, were separately applied to the investigation of fine solute clustering of solute atoms in an Al-1.9Zn-1.7Mg (at.%) at two distinct states of early phase decomposition and the results of these analyses were evaluated.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations336
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicroscopy and MicroanalysisSame topicAdvanced Materials Characterization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207