Energy Isosbestic Points in Third-Row Transition Metal Alloys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The total electronic energies of the six electrons per atom (e per atom) alloys W, TaRe, HfOs, and YIr and the seven electrons per atom alloys Re, WOs, TaIr, HfPt, and YAu have been calculated in the local density approximation of density functional theory. When one considers common alloy structures such as atomically ordered variants of the body-centered cubic, face-centered cubic, or hexagonally closest packed structures and plots the total electronic energy as a function of the unit cell parameter, one finds for both the six and seven electrons per atom series energetic isosbestic points. An energetic isosbestic point corresponds to a critical value of the size parameter for which all members of the 6 or 7 e per atom series of compounds have nearly identical total electronic energy. Just as in spectroscopy, where the existence of such isosbestic points is the hallmark of two compounds present in the mixture, an energy isosbestic point implies there are just two separate energy curves. For both series it is found that the total electronic energy can be viewed as the weighted sum of a purely covalent term and a purely ionic term. Two semi-quantitative models are proposed to account for these two separate energies. In the first model the total energy is viewed as the sum of the elemental structural energy plus an ionic energy based on the Born-Mayer ionic model. In the second model one considers within the confines of mu2-Hückel theory the evolution of the total electronic energy as the Coulombic Hii integrals change in value.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".