Phase Transitions and Thermal Equation of State of Fe‐9wt.%Si Applied to the Moon and Mercury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Accurate knowledge of the phase transitions and thermoelastic properties of candidate iron alloys, such as Fe‐Si alloys, is essential for understanding the nature and dynamics of planetary cores. The phase diagrams of some Fe‐Si alloys between 1 atm and 16 GPa have been back‐extrapolated from higher pressures, but the resulting phase diagram of Fe 83.6 Si 16.4 (9 wt.% Si) is inconsistent with temperature‐induced changes in its electrical resistivity between 6 and 8 GPa. This study reports in situ synchrotron X‐ray diffraction (XRD) measurements on pre‐melted and powder Fe 83.6 Si 16.4 samples from ambient conditions to 60 GPa and 900 K using an externally heated diamond‐anvil cell. Upon compression at 300 K, the bcc phase persisted up to ∼38 GPa. The hcp phase appeared near 8 GPa in the pre‐melted sample, and near 17 GPa in the powder sample. The appearance of the hcp phase in the pre‐melted sample reconciles the reported changes in electrical resistivity of a similar sample, thus resolving the low‐pressure region of the phase diagram. The resulting high‐temperature Birch‐Murnaghan equation of state (EoS) and thermal EoS based on the Mie‐Gruneisen‐Debye model of the bcc and hcp structures are consistent with, and complement the literature data at higher pressures. The calculated densities based on the thermal EoS of Fe‐9wt.%Si indicate that both bcc and hcp phases agree with the reported core density estimates for the Moon and Mercury.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".