Why some carbons may or may not graphitize? The point of view of thermodynamics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Not all carbons graphitize in equal measure. Some will develop a structure which approaches the one of perfect graphite (graphitizable carbons) upon heat treatment, while others will not (non-graphitizable carbons). The present work develops a phenomenological model for the conceptual understanding of graphitizability (capacity to graphitize). To support this model, a mathematical formalism, inspired from thermodynamics, is proposed to calculate the Ultimate Graphitizability (ηg) of some graphitizable and non-graphitizable carbon materials. ηg is the average interlayer spacing (d002) of a graphenic carbon following graphitization at ∼3400K. ηg can be estimated assuming a topological graphitization mechanism operating between 1700K and 3400K. Two independent variables define ηg: d002(Tα) and d002(Tβ). Tα and Tβ are arbitrarily selected temperatures between 1700K and 2550K (the graphitization threshold). In order to better understand the parameters affecting d002(Tα) and d002(Tβ), new carbonization/graphitization experimental results are presented. These suggest that d002(Tα) and d002(Tβ) are correlated to the oxygen/hydrogen composition ratio and the relative mesoscale crystallite orientation of some graphitizable carbons following the end of primary carbonization.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it