Critical Evaluation and Thermodynamic Modeling of the <scp> <scp>Mg</scp> </scp> – <scp> <scp>Mn</scp> </scp> – <scp> <scp>O</scp> </scp> ( <scp> <scp>MgO</scp> </scp> – <scp> <scp>MnO</scp> </scp> – <scp> <scp>MnO</scp> </scp> <sub>2</sub> ) System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All phase diagram and thermodynamic data of the MgO – MnO and MgO – MnO – MnO 2 systems were critically evaluated and thermodynamically optimized to obtain one set of thermodynamic model parameters. The MgMn 2 O 4 – Mn 3 O 4 spinel solutions were modeled with two sublattices Compound Energy Formalism by considering the cation distribution between tetrahedral and octahedral sites. The slag phase and monoxide solid solution were also described using the Modified Quasichemical Model and Bragg–Williams random mixing model, respectively. The optimized thermodynamic model parameters can be used with a Gibbs energy minimization routine to calculate the phase diagram and thermodynamic properties of the system at oxygen partial pressures between metal saturation and 1 atm.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.026 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".