Ubiquity of the kinetic compensation effect: A consequence of the existence of a maximum in energy dissipation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The significance of the often observed kinetic compensation effect (KCE) remains controversial. The assumption of its validity, as well as its ubiquity, has led to speculations on its significance with no general consensus in the scientific community. Efforts to understand the KCE have usually attempted connections between microscopic events, structures, and mechanisms involved in various kinetic processes. An alternative proposition, with no relation to specific mechanisms, is presented suggesting that there is no new conceptual physics in the KCE. An analysis of internal friction (IF) in the framework of linear response to weak perturbations highlights that the concomitant energy dissipation cannot exceed a maximum or peak value which depends solely on the anelastic properties of the material. The KCE is shown to be a consequence of this simple fact. This physical principle underpinning the KCE is able to explain its ubiquity because of its general nature beyond any specific kinetic rate mechanism. Examples of IF in different systems such as polycrystalline thermoelectric composites and Al bicrystals, which show evidence of the KCE, conform to this prediction. While the observation on Al bicrystals has previously been presented and interpreted as signaling a phase transition, the analysis presented here demonstrates the simpler alternative. A similar argument is presented to derive the KCE in the thermal desorption of gases, which involves kinetic processes unrelated to the above examples. It is proposed that a KCE can, in general, be deduced for any set of closely related relaxation processes having close peak values of energy dissipation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".