MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2410304542 · doi:10.1002/2016gl069084

First‐principles prediction of fast migration channels of potassium ions in KAlSi<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> hollandite: Implications for high conductivity anomalies in subduction zones

2016· article· en· W2410304542 on OpenAlexaff
Yu He, Yang Sun, Xia Lu, Jian Gao, Hong Li, Heping Li

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear materials and radiation effects
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsHollanditeRingwooditeIonic conductivityConductivityAlkali metalBiogeosciencesGeologyIonic bondingMineralogyMaterials scienceIonMantle (geology)GeochemistryChemistryPhysical chemistryElectrolyte

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Materials sharing the hollandite structure were widely reported as fast ionic conductors. However, the ionic conductivity of KAlSi 3 O 8 hollandite (K‐hollandite), which can be formed during the subduction process, has not been investigated so far. Here first‐principles calculations are used to investigate the potassium ion (K + ) transport properties in K‐hollandite. The calculated K + migration barrier energy is 0.44 eV at a pressure of 10 GPa, an energy quite small to block the K + migration in K‐hollandite channels. The calculated ionic conductivity of K‐hollandite is highly anisotropic and depends on its concentration of K + vacancies. About 6% K + vacancies in K‐hollandite can lead to a higher conductivity compared to the conductivity of hydrated wadsleyite and ringwoodite in the mantle. K + vacancies being commonly found in many K‐hollandite samples with maximum vacancies over 30%, the formation of K‐hollandite during subduction of continental or alkali‐rich oceanic crust can contribute to the high conductivity anomalies observed in subduction zones.

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)0.001
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 score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations21
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicNuclear materials and radiation effectsFrench-language works237,207