Phase Stability, Structural Evolution and Magnetic Properties of Sc<sub>(1</sub><sub>-</sub><i><sub>x</sub></i><sub>)</sub>Lu<i><sub>x</sub></i>VO<sub>3</sub> (0.0 ≤ <i>x</i> ≤ 1.0)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report the synthesis and formation mechanism of Sc (1 - x ) Lu x VO 3 (0.0 ≤ x ≤ 1.0) using in situ powder X-ray diffraction and bulk solid-state preparation methods. The reduction of the solid solution Sc (1 - x ) Lu x VO 4 (0.0 ≤ x ≤ 1.0) results in orthorhombic perovskites (space group Pnma ) Sc (1 - x ) Lu x VO 3 for x ≥ 0.58 and cubic bixbyites (space group: Ia 3̄) Sc (1 - x ) Lu x VO 3 for Sc-rich samples with x < 0.1. During the high-temperature synthesis, Sc-rich bixbyite structures are initially formed and in a second step Lu-rich perovskites are formed. This two-step process is followed by Sc−Lu exchange between the two initial phases as shown by time-resolved powder X-ray diffraction. The in situ diffraction studies provide the basis for the preparation of metastable bixbyite as well as thermodynamically stable perovskite and bixbyite phases. For the perovskite phases, low-temperature powder neutron diffraction data and dc magnetic susceptibility data show that the Néel temperatures for the canted antiferromagnets range from 50 K for x = 0.58 to 100 K for x = 0.9. The Néel temperatures correlate with the V−O−V bond angles in the orthorhombic structures. The magnetic structure evolution has been followed as a function of temperature using powder neutron diffraction. In contrast, the cation-disordered bixbyite phases do not undergo magnetic long-range ordering, even at temperatures as low as 3 K.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".