MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391892493 · doi:10.1063/4.0000226

Phase field crystal models with applications to laser deposition: A review

2024· review· en· W4391892493 on OpenAlexafffund
Duncan Burns, Nikolas Provatas, Martin Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueStructural Dynamics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSolidification and crystal growth phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlliance de recherche numérique du Canada
KeywordsDeposition (geology)Phase (matter)Field (mathematics)Materials scienceCrystal (programming language)LaserComputer scienceOpticsGeologyChemistryPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we address the application of phase field crystal (PFC) theory, a hybrid atomistic-continuum approach, for modeling nanostructure kinetics encountered in laser deposition. We first provide an overview of the PFC methodology, highlighting recent advances to incorporate phononic and heat transport mechanisms. To simulate laser heating, energy is deposited onto a number of polycrystalline, two-dimensional samples through the application of initial stochastic fluctuations. We first demonstrate the ability of the model to simulate plasticity and recrystallization events that follow laser heating in the isothermal limit. Importantly, we also show that sufficient kinetic energy can cause voiding, which serves to suppress shock propagation. We subsequently employ a newly developed thermo-density PFC theory, coined thermal field crystal (TFC), to investigate laser heating of polycrystalline samples under non-isothermal conditions. We observe that the latent heat of transition associated with ordering can lead to long lasting metastable structures and defects, with a healing rate linked to the thermal diffusion. Finally, we illustrate that the lattice temperature simulated by the TFC model is in qualitative agreement with predictions of conventional electron-phonon two-temperature models. We expect that our new TFC formalism can be useful for predicting transient structures that result from rapid laser heating and re-solidification processes.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructural DynamicsSame topicSolidification and crystal growth phenomenaFrench-language works237,207