MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805138606 · doi:10.1021/acs.jpcc.8b02608

A Cumulative Approach to Crystalline Structure Characterization in Atomistic Simulations

2018· article· en· W2805138606 on OpenAlexaff
Kamran Behdinan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry C · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMicrostructure and mechanical properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharacterization (materials science)Statistical physicsMaterials sciencePhysicsNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crystalline characterization poses a challenge when atomic deformation and phase transformation are occurring in an atomic simulation. Crystalline solids are typically characterized by parameters used to classify local atomic arrangements in order to extract features such as crack tips, dislocations, and free surfaces. One such characterization parameter, the common neighborhood parameter (CNP), has been used as an approach to characterize those features with an enhanced formulation applicable to non-monoatomic interactions. The present work introduces a novel approach that extends the CNP to characterize crystalline structures by means of cumulative common neighborhood parametrization (CCNP) for arbitrary structures. The method is compared with the centrosymmetry parameter (CSP) and the common neighborhood parameter (CNA). The methods were applied to a molecular dynamics (MD) simulation of uniaxial tension in an aluminum nanowire. The results showed CCNP’s superior performance in detecting distinct surface features from bulk features with excellent parameter value ranges. The method was also extended to characterize a complex P 4 2 / mnm space group, non-monoatomic crystal with no common first-nearest neighbors in a type I MD fracture simulation. The data refinement of the proposed method was applied to extract surface features like edges, roughness, corner, and undeformed surface atoms.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry CSame topicMicrostructure and mechanical propertiesFrench-language works237,207