A survey of energies from pure metals to multi-principal element alloys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In materials science, a wide range of properties of materials are governed by various types of energies, including thermal, physicochemical, structural, and mechanical energies. In 2005, Dr. Frans Spaepen used crystalline face-centered cubic (fcc) copper as an example to discuss a variety of phenomena that are associated with energies. Inspired by his pioneering work, we broaden our analysis to include a selection of representative pure metals with fcc, hexagonal close-packed (hcp), and body-centered cubic (bcc) structures. Additionally, we extend our comparison to energies between pure metals and equiatomic binary, ternary, and multi-principal element alloys [sometimes also known as high-entropy alloys (HEAs)]. Through an extensive collection of data and calculations, we compile energy tables that provide a comprehensive view of how structure and alloying influence the energy profiles of these metals and alloys. We highlight the significant impact of constituent elements on the energies of alloys compared to pure metals and reveal a notable disparity in mechanical energies among materials in fcc-, hcp- and bcc-structured metals and alloys. Furthermore, we discuss the energy relationships, the implications for structural transformations and potential applications, providing insights into the broader context of these energy variations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
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".