Kinetic coefficient of steps at the Si(111) crystal-melt interface from molecular dynamics simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nonequilibrium molecular dynamics simulations are applied to the investigation of step-flow kinetics at crystal-melt interfaces of silicon, modeled with the Stillinger-Weber potential [Phys. Rev. B 31, 5262 (1985)]. Step kinetic coefficients are calculated from crystallization rates of interfaces that are vicinals of the faceted (111) orientation. These vicinal interfaces contain periodic arrays of bilayer steps, and they are observed to crystallize in a step-flow growth mode at undercoolings lower than 40 K. Kinetic coefficients for both [110] and [121] oriented steps are determined for several values of the average step separation, in the range of 7.7-62.4 A. The values of the step kinetic coefficients are shown to be highly isotropic, and are found to increase with increasing step separation until they saturate at step separations larger than approximately 50 A. The largest step kinetic coefficients are found to be in the range of 0.7-0.8 m(sK), values that are more than five times larger than the kinetic coefficient for the rough (100) crystal-melt interface in the same system. The dependence of step mobility on step separation and the relatively large value of the step kinetic coefficient are discussed in terms of available theoretical models for crystal growth kinetics from the melt.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".