MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412487907 · doi:10.1021/acsnano.5c06666

Element-Specific Local Chemical Order of High-Entropy Nanoalloys

2025· article· en· W4412487907 on OpenAlexafffund
David J. Morris, Boyang Li, Yonggang Yao, Zhennan Huang, Reza Shahbazian‐Yassar, Guofeng Wang, Liangbing Hu, Peng Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Nano · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh Entropy Alloys Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEntropy (arrow of time)AlloyCatalysisMaterials scienceHigh entropy alloysDecompositionNanotechnologyBiological systemChemical physicsComputer scienceChemistryThermodynamicsPhysicsMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multielemental nanoalloys have shown significant promise in applications like catalysis, due to the structural features that arise from their complex structure. A key feature of particular interest is local chemical order (LCO) at the scale of a single neighboring bond length. LCO has proven challenging and inconclusive to identify and assess in these materials, particularly in samples containing elements with similar atomic numbers. Herein, we apply a methodology combining experimental X-ray absorption spectroscopy and computational simulations, allowing for the reliable verification and quantification of LCO in a five-element high-entropy alloy (HEA-5) on an element-specific basis. The analysis identifies the Ru-Ir bonding pair as a significant component of LCO, which correlates with HEA-5's established high catalytic performance in ammonia decomposition. The methodology is further applied to a complex 15-element HEA sample, where consistent LCO trends are observed. These results support an element-specific approach for investigating LCO, structural analysis, and the catalytic design of high-entropy nanoalloys.

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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS NanoSame topicHigh Entropy Alloys StudiesFrench-language works237,207