MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Oxide Self-Flux in Optical Floating Zone Crystal Growth of Nickel Niobate (NiNb<sub>2</sub>O<sub>6</sub>)

2017· preprint· en· W2616037550 on OpenAlexafffund
Timothy J. S. Munsie, A. Millington, G. M. Luke, H. A. Dabkowska

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhotorefractive and Nonlinear Optics
Canadian institutionsBrockhouse Institute for Materials ResearchCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of CanadaMcMaster University
KeywordsRutileCrystal (programming language)Nickel oxideNickelColumbiteMaterials scienceOxideCrystal growthFlux (metallurgy)Phase diagramZone meltingNon-blocking I/OPhase (matter)Analytical Chemistry (journal)NiobiumMineralogyCrystallographyMetallurgyChemical engineeringChemistryCeramicChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growing crystals of nickel niobate (NiNb2O6), we noticed that changing growth conditions allowed our material to enter different areas of the phase diagram. In particular, we found that excess material accumulated within and above the liquid zone. Analysis showed that this was an unincorporated constituent. Changing the ratio of the constituent oxides - an excess of ~4% of either NiO or Nb2O5 gave us the opportunity to investigate changes in zone stability, melting temperature and quality of the resulting crystal. We found that a small excess of nickel oxide decreases the melting temperature significantly, and created the best pseudo-rutile NiNb2O6 crystal studied, while higher amounts of niobium oxide allowed us to stabilize the NiNb2O6 columbite phase. This research reinforces the idea that self-flux as a travelling solvent can significantly impact crystal growth parameters and quality.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicPhotorefractive and Nonlinear OpticsFrench-language works237,207