Free energy surface of two-step nucleation
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
We test the theoretical free energy surface (FES) for two-step nucleation (TSN) proposed by Iwamatsu [J. Chem. Phys. 134, 164508 (2011)] by comparing the predictions of the theory to numerical results for the FES recently reported from Monte Carlo simulations of TSN in a simple lattice system [James et al., J. Chem. Phys. 150, 074501 (2019)]. No adjustable parameters are used to make this comparison. That is, all the parameters of the theory are evaluated directly for the model system, yielding a predicted FES, which we then compare to the FES obtained from simulations. We find that the theoretical FES successfully predicts the numerically evaluated FES over a range of thermodynamic conditions that spans distinct regimes of behavior associated with TSN. All the qualitative features of the FES are captured by the theory, and the quantitative comparison is also very good. Our results demonstrate that Iwamatsu's extension of classical nucleation theory provides an excellent framework for understanding the thermodynamics of TSN.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it