Influence of sample preparation on the transformation of low-density to high-density amorphous ice: An explanation based on the potential energy landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiments and computer simulations of the transformations of amorphous ices display different behaviors depending on sample preparation methods and on the rates of change of temperature and pressure to which samples are subjected. In addition to these factors, simulation results also depend strongly on the chosen water model. Using computer simulations of the ST2 water model, we study how the sharpness of the compression-induced transition from low-density amorphous ice (LDA) to high-density amorphous ice (HDA) is influenced by the preparation of LDA. By studying LDA samples prepared using widely different procedures, we find that the sharpness of the LDA-to-HDA transformation is correlated with the depth of the initial LDA sample in the potential energy landscape (PEL), as characterized by the inherent structure energy. Our results show that the complex phenomenology of the amorphous ices reported in experiments and computer simulations can be understood and predicted in a unified way from knowledge of the PEL of the system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".