MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Consistent representation of vapor phases in phase field crystal dynamics

2023· article· en· W4322492314 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew J. Frick, Emily Wilson, Nikolas Provatas

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Materials · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSolidification and crystal growth phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsCompute Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceNucleationFormalism (music)Vapor phaseChemical physicsThermodynamicsStatistical physicsCondensed matter physicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate exploration of processes involving interactions among defects, voids, and density shrinkage in rapid solidification requires the ability to simulate phase transformations over large density ranges. We begin this work by presenting a number of numerical artifacts that arise in previous attempts to model the dynamics of solid-liquid-vapor interactions using phase field crystal (PFC) models based on a single density field coupled to its mean field. We then propose a new PFC formalism for modeling solid-liquid-vapor systems that self-consistently couples two components of the density field, one varying on the usual atomic length-scales, the other on scales much greater than the atomic lattice constant. It is shown that the new formalism is free of the aforementioned artifacts exhibited by previous PFC models. We generalize this new solid-liquid-vapor PFC model to alloys and demonstrate its utility through the nucleation of voids in both a fully solid material and during solidification into a liquid.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review MaterialsSame topicSolidification and crystal growth phenomenaFrench-language works237,207