MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408184250 · doi:10.1021/acsnano.4c11099

Breakdown of Magic Numbers in Spherical Confinement

2025· article· en· W4408184250 on OpenAlexaff
Junwei Wang, Jonathan Martín-González, Lukas Römling, Chrameh Fru Mbah, Praveen K. Bommineni, Erdmann Spiecker, Michael Engel, Nicolas Vogel

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Nano · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanocluster Synthesis and Applications
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsMAGIC (telescope)Materials scienceMagic number (chemistry)NanotechnologyPhysicsCondensed matter physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magic numbers in finite particle systems correspond to specific system sizes that allow configurations with low free energy, often exhibiting closed surface shells to maximize the number of nearest neighbors. Since their discovery in atomic nuclei, magic numbers have been essential for understanding the number-structure-property relationships in finite clusters across different scales. However, as the system size increases, the significance of magic numbers diminishes, and the precise system size at which magic number phenomena disappear remains uncertain. In this study, we investigate colloidal clusters formed through confined self-assembly. Small magic number clusters display icosahedral symmetry with closed surface shells, corresponding to pronounced free energy minima. Our findings reveal that beyond a critical system size, closed surface shells disappear, and free energy minima become less pronounced. Instead, we observe a distinct type of colloidal cluster, termed a football cluster, which retains icosahedral symmetry but features lower-coordinated facets disconnected by terraces. A sphere packing model demonstrates that forming closed surface shells becomes impossible beyond a critical system size, explaining the breakdown of magic numbers in large confined systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.789

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS NanoSame topicNanocluster Synthesis and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207