MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326393247 · doi:10.3139/146.110637

A model to calculate the viscosity of silicate melts

2012· article· en· W2326393247 on OpenAlexaff
Wan-Yi Kim, Arthur D. Pelton, Sergei A. Decterov

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Materials Research (formerly Zeitschrift fuer Metallkunde) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgical Processes and Thermodynamics
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTernary operationUnary operationViscosityAlkali metalThermodynamicsSilicateMaterials scienceTernary numeral systemOxideMineralogyChemistryOrganic chemistryPhysicsMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Our recently developed model to describe the viscosity of silicate melts is extended to describe and predict the viscosities of alkali-rich silicate melts. The model requires one additional binary parameter for each M 2 O–SiO 2 system, where M is an alkali metal, to a total of three binary parameters per binary system alkali oxide – silica. In addition to unary and binary parameters, the model requires two ternary parameters for each alumina-containing ternary system M O x –Al 2 O 3 –SiO 2 , where M O x is a basic oxide, to describe the viscosity maxima in these ternary systems due to the Charge Compensation Effect. The viscosity of multicomponent melts and of ternary melts M O x – N O y –SiO 2 , where M O x and N O y are basic oxides, is predicted by the model solely from the unary, binary and ternary parameters. The available viscosity data for the alkali-containing subsystems of the Al 2 O 3 –CaO–MgO–Na 2 O–K 2 O–SiO 2 system are reviewed. The model reproduces the experimental data for binary and ternary melts and predicts the viscosities of multicomponent melts within experimental error limits. In particular, the viscosities of glass melts and melts of importance for petrology are well predicted by the model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations43
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Materials Research (formerly Zeitschrift fuer Metallkunde)Same topicMetallurgical Processes and ThermodynamicsFrench-language works237,207