Impact of Synthesis Method on the Structure and Function of High Entropy Oxides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term sample dependence describes the troublesome tendency of nominally equivalent samples to exhibit different physical properties. High entropy oxides (HEOs) are a class of materials where sample dependence has the potential to be particularly profound due to their inherent chemical complexity. In this work, we prepare a spinel HEO of identical nominal composition by five distinct methods, spanning a range of thermodynamic and kinetic conditions: solid state, high pressure, hydrothermal, molten salt, and combustion syntheses. By structurally characterizing these five samples across all length scales with a variety of X-ray methods, we find that while the average structure is unaltered, the samples vary significantly in their local structures and their microstructures. The most profound differences are observed at intermediate length scales, both in terms of crystallite morphology and cation homogeneity. As revealed by X-ray fluorescence microscopy ideal cation homogeneity is achieved only in the case of combustion synthesis. These structural differences in turn significantly alter the observed functional properties, which we demonstrate via characterization of their magnetic response. While ferrimagnetic order is retained across all five samples, the sharpness of the transition, the size of the saturated moment, and the coercivity all show marked variations with synthesis method. We conclude that the chemical flexibility inherent to HEOs is complemented by strong synthesis method dependence, providing another axis along which to optimize these materials for a wide range of applications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".