MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795786965 · doi:10.1063/1.5022273

Strength and texture of sodium chloride to 56 GPa

2018· article· en· W2795786965 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhongying Mi, S. R. Shieh, A. Kavner, Boris Kiefer, Hans‐Rudolf Wenk, T. S. Duffy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCarnegie Institution of WashingtonNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMaterials sciencePhase (matter)Texture (cosmology)SodiumDiffractionSlip (aerodynamics)CrystallographyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryComposite materialThermodynamicsMetallurgyOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The strength and texture of sodium chloride in the B1 (rocksalt) and B2 (cesium chloride) phases were investigated in a diamond anvil cell using synchrotron X-ray diffraction in a radial geometry to 56 GPa. The measured differential stresses within the Reuss limit are in the range of 0.2 GPa for the B1 phase at pressure of 24 GPa and 1.6 GPa for the B2 phase at pressure of 56 GPa. A strength weakening is observed near the B1-B2 phase transition at about 30 GPa. The low strength of NaCl in the B1 phase confirms that it is an effective pressure-transmitting medium for high-pressure experiments to ∼30 GPa. The B2 phase can be also used as a pressure-transmitting medium although it exhibits a steeper increase in strength with pressure than the B1 phase. Deformation induces weak lattice preferred orientation in NaCl, showing a (100) texture in the B1 phase and a (110) texture in the B2 phase. The observed textures were evaluated by viscoplastic self-consistent model and our results suggest {110}⟨11¯0⟩ as the slip system for the B1 phase and {112}⟨11¯0⟩ for the B2 phase.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.359
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations21
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207