MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801495866 · doi:10.1111/jace.15712

Atomistic modeling of thermo‐mechanical properties of cubic SiC

2018· article· en· W2801495866 on OpenAlexafffund
Barbara Szpunar, Linu Malakkal, Jahidur Rahman, Jerzy A. Szpunar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Ceramic Society · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSilicon Carbide Semiconductor Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCompute Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceMolecular dynamicsThermal conductivityThermal expansionThermalWork (physics)ThermodynamicsStiffnessMaterial propertiesInteratomic potentialStructural materialComposite materialComputational chemistryChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract SiC is an important multifunctional material with application in electronics and as a structural material. Many investigations of SiC have been done using both classical molecular dynamics and first principles methods. However, they are of limited scope and, in particular, SiC properties at finite temperatures have not been adequately evaluated. The good mechanical, thermal, and chemical properties of SiC such as high stiffness, high hardness, high mechanical strength at high temperature, and high thermal conductivity, make SiC a candidate for various applications in nuclear industries. In this work, we evaluated thermomechanical properties at finite temperatures obtained by LAMMPS code with traditionally used Tersoff potential (TR89 with PRB 41 correction), and the newer GW 2002 (GW02) potential. We compared them with the calculations made using MEAM 1995 (MEAM 95) and with our first principles DFT predictions. It is demonstrated that the thermal expansion and mechanical properties calculated as a function of temperature for classical potentials TR89 and GW02 do not agree well with first principles calculations while better agreement is found for the MEAM95 potential. Classical molecular dynamics calculations made with the use of two earlier potentials under‐predict thermal conductivity by one order of magnitude for the TR89 potential and by more than 30% for the GW02.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations20
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Ceramic SocietySame topicSilicon Carbide Semiconductor TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207