The 2019 materials by design roadmap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in renewable and sustainable energy technologies critically depend on our ability to design and realize materials with optimal properties. Materials discovery and design efforts ideally involve close coupling between materials prediction, synthesis and characterization. The increased use of computational tools, the generation of materials databases, and advances in experimental methods have substantially accelerated these activities. It is therefore an opportune time to consider future prospects for materials by design approaches. The purpose of this Roadmap is to present an overview of the current state of computational materials prediction, synthesis and characterization approaches, materials design needs for various technologies, and future challenges and opportunities that must be addressed. The various perspectives cover topics on computational techniques, validation, materials databases, materials informatics, high-throughput combinatorial methods, advanced characterization approaches, and materials design issues in thermoelectrics, photovoltaics, solid state lighting, catalysts, batteries, metal alloys, complex oxides and transparent conducting materials. It is our hope that this Roadmap will guide researchers and funding agencies in identifying new prospects for materials design.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.094 | 0.054 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".