MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952922453 · doi:10.1021/ic501808y

Crystal Cluster Growth and Physical Properties of the EuSbSe<sub>3</sub> and EuBiSe<sub>3</sub> Phases

2014· article· en· W2952922453 on OpenAlexafffund
Scott Forbes, Yu‐Chih Tseng, Yurij Mozharivskyj

Bibliographic record

VenueInorganic Chemistry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvanced Thermoelectric Materials and Devices
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsChemistryElectrical resistivity and conductivityEuropiumValence (chemistry)ElectronegativityChalcogenideFermi levelCrystal structureBand gapSemiconductorCluster (spacecraft)CrystallographyNarrow-gap semiconductorSingle crystalCondensed matter physicsMaterials scienceIonPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Syntheses of europium metal, selenium powder, and the Sb(2)Se(3)/Bi(2)Se(3) binaries were observed to produce crystal clusters of the EuSbSe(3) and EuBiSe(3) phases. These phases crystallize with the P2(1)2(1)2(1) space group and can be easily identified based on their growth habits, forming large clusters of needles. Previous literature suggested that their structure is charge-balanced with all europium atoms in the divalent state and one-quarter of the selenium atoms forming trimers. Physical property measurements on a pure sample of EuSbSe(3) revealed typical Arrhenius-type electrical resistivity, being approximately 3 orders of magnitude too large for thermoelectric applications. Electronic structure calculations indicated that both EuSbSe(3) and EuBiSe(3) are narrow-band-gap semiconductors, in good agreement with the electrical resistivity data. The valence and conduction band states near the Fermi level are dominated by the Sb/Bi and Se p states, as expected given their small difference in electronegativity.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.688

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInorganic ChemistrySame topicAdvanced Thermoelectric Materials and DevicesFrench-language works237,207