Review and perspective on polyhedron model for estimating thermodynamic properties of oxides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Knowledge of thermodynamics and phase equilibria of oxidic materials is crucial for advancement in the field of ceramics and glass. With the development of computational thermodynamics, predicting phase diagrams and chemical reactions of multicomponent systems has become possible. However, there are still plenty of oxides, the thermodynamic properties of which have not been identified due to the challenges in conducting experiments. Therefore, a key to the advancement in thermodynamic modeling would be to develop a universal model that can be used to estimate the thermodynamic properties of oxides with reliable extrapolation capacity. Atomistic (or molecular) scale models are still insufficient in predicting the thermodynamic properties of oxides at any scale. Alternatively, among group contribution–based methods, the polyhedron model has presented its potential in the estimation of the thermodynamic properties of ionic crystals. However, this model still demands improvements that increase the model's accuracy and extrapolation capacity. In this paper, the background and the state‐of‐the‐art of polyhedron model will be presented together with its strengths and shortcomings. Subsequently, it will be briefly discussed how the field of artificial intelligence could be exploited to devise the next generation of the polyhedron model, the modified polyhedron model.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".