MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2528268542 · doi:10.1063/1.4963767

Ordering effects of conjugate thermal fields in simulations of molecular liquids: Carbon dioxide and water

2016· article· en· W2528268542 on OpenAlexafffund
Harro Dittmar, Peter G. Kusalik

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsNucleationThermostatChemical physicsMolecular dynamicsSupercoolingCarbon dioxideParticle (ecology)Crystal (programming language)Materials scienceThermodynamicsFlux (metallurgy)Umbrella samplingChemistryThermalComputational chemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As shown previously, it is possible to apply configurational and kinetic thermostats simultaneously in order to induce a steady thermal flux in molecular dynamics simulations of many-particle systems. This flux appears to promote motion along potential gradients and can be utilized to enhance the sampling of ordered arrangements, i.e., it can facilitate the formation of a critical nucleus. Here we demonstrate that the same approach can be applied to molecular systems, and report a significant enhancement of the homogeneous crystal nucleation of a carbon dioxide (EPM2 model) system. Quantitative ordering effects and reduction of the particle mobilities were observed in water (TIP4P-2005 model) and carbon dioxide systems. The enhancement of the crystal nucleation of carbon dioxide was achieved with relatively small conjugate thermal fields. The effect is many orders of magnitude bigger at milder supercooling, where the forward flux sampling method was employed, than at a lower temperature that enabled brute force simulations of nucleation events. The behaviour exhibited implies that the effective free energy barrier of nucleation must have been reduced by the conjugate thermal field in line with our interpretation of previous results for atomic systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Thermodynamics and Statistical MechanicsFrench-language works237,207