MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766021019 · doi:10.1103/physreve.97.042802

Classical nucleation theory in the phase-field crystal model

2018· article· en· W2766021019 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Jreidini, Gabriel Kocher, Nikolas Provatas

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSolidification and crystal growth phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleationClassical nucleation theoryStatistical physicsScalingMesoscale meteorologyMaterials scienceMolecular dynamicsPhase (matter)Phase transitionChemical physicsThermodynamicsPhysicsChemistryComputational chemistryMathematicsGeometryQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. ESame topicSolidification and crystal growth phenomenaFrench-language works237,207