Toward the design of ultrahigh-entropy alloys via mining six million texts
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
It has long been a norm that researchers extract knowledge from literature to design materials. However, the avalanche of publications makes the norm challenging to follow. Text mining (TM) is efficient in extracting information from corpora. Still, it cannot discover materials not present in the corpora, hindering its broader applications in exploring novel materials, such as high-entropy alloys (HEAs). Here we introduce a concept of "context similarity" for selecting chemical elements for HEAs, based on TM models that analyze the abstracts of 6.4 million papers. The method captures the similarity of chemical elements in the context used by scientists. It overcomes the limitations of TM and identifies the Cantor and Senkov HEAs. We demonstrate its screening capability for six- and seven-component lightweight HEAs by finding nearly 500 promising alloys out of 2.6 million candidates. The method thus brings an approach to the development of ultrahigh-entropy alloys and multicomponent materials.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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