Classical nucleation theory in the phase-field crystal model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A full understanding of polycrystalline materials requires studying the process of nucleation, a thermally activated phase transition that typically occurs at atomistic scales. The numerical modeling of this process is problematic for traditional numerical techniques: commonly used phase-field methods' resolution does not extend to the atomic scales at which nucleation takes places, while atomistic methods such as molecular dynamics are incapable of scaling to the mesoscale regime where late-stage growth and structure formation takes place following earlier nucleation. Consequently, it is of interest to examine nucleation in the more recently proposed phase-field crystal (PFC) model, which attempts to bridge the atomic and mesoscale regimes in microstructure simulations. In this work, we numerically calculate homogeneous liquid-to-solid nucleation rates and incubation times in the simplest version of the PFC model, for various parameter choices. We show that the model naturally exhibits qualitative agreement with the predictions of classical nucleation theory (CNT) despite a lack of some explicit atomistic features presumed in CNT. We also examine the early appearance of lattice structure in nucleating grains, finding disagreement with some basic assumptions of CNT. We then argue that a quantitatively correct nucleation theory for the PFC model would require extending CNT to a multivariable theory.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
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 it