Ge10Yb11: enthalpy of formation

6 accepted literature formation-enthalpy value(s) (experimental 2, model 3, DFT 1); experimental median -69.9 kJ/mol-atom (n = 2).

Systems: Ge–Yb

Literature values

Enthalpy of formation of Ge10Yb11 reported in the literature (6)
Value	Phase as printed	T (K)	Class	Method	System	Source	Location
-69.9 kJ/mol-atom ± 8.2	Yb11Ge10	298.15	experimental	KEWL and KEMS	Ge–Yb	[1] Achgar 2018 cites Balducci 2007 doi	Table 2, p. 5, row 11 report
-69.9 kJ/mol-atom ± 8.2	Yb11Ge10	298.15	experimental	KE technique	Ge–Yb	[2] Dai-man 2018 cites Balducci 2007	Table 2, p. 4, row 11 report
-77.85 kJ/mol-atom	Yb11Ge10	298.15	model	SCM	Ge–Yb	[2] Dai-man 2018	Table 2, p. 4, row 13 report
-70.319 kJ/mol-atom	Yb11Ge10		model	Optimization	Ge–Yb	[1] Achgar 2018	Table 2, p. 5, row 12 report
-69.8555 kJ/mol-atom	Yb11Ge10		model	Optimization	Ge–Yb	[1] Achgar 2018	Table 2, p. 5, row 13 report
-63.4 kJ/mol-atom	Yb11Ge10	0	DFT	DFT calculation	Ge–Yb	[2] Dai-man 2018 cites Saal 2013	Table 2, p. 4, row 12 report

Uncertainty budget

Components kept separate, in the value's unit (literature SCHEMA.md, UNCERTAINTY_CALIBRATION.md): effective = max(sqrt(max(printed, reading, method)^2 + composition^2 + conversion^2), scatter). The method floor is the robust between-study scatter of the method class in ORCHID (calibrated) or a documented prior; printed values and printed uncertainties are unchanged.

Uncertainty budget of the literature values of Ge10Yb11
Value	Unit	Printed	Reading	Method (class, basis)	Effective
-69.9	kJ/mol-atom	8.2	0.05	4.2 (kems_vapour, calibrated)	8.2
-69.9	kJ/mol-atom	8.2	0.05	4.2 (kems_vapour, calibrated)	8.2
-77.85	kJ/mol-atom		0.005	3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)	3.9
-70.319	kJ/mol-atom		5.000e-4	3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)	3.9
-69.8555	kJ/mol-atom		5.000e-5	3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)	3.9
-63.4	kJ/mol-atom		0.05	8.395 (dft, calibrated)	8.395

Sources

Khadija Achgar, Saïd Kardellass, Najim Selhaoui, Thermodynamic assessment of the Ytterbium–Germanium binary system, J Therm Anal Calorim 131, 443-453 (2018). doi:10.1007/s10973-017-6203-x
Zhu Dai-man, Li Chang-rong, Guo Cui-ping, Du Zhen-min, Thermodynamic assessment of the Ge-Yb binary system, Ferroelectrics 522, 80-87 (2018). doi:10.1080/00150193.2018.1392217

Please cite

R. Arróyave, J. Saal, D. Shin, ORCHID-Values: thermodynamic and phase-equilibrium values read from the literature (version 2026.10; Version 1, machine-extracted), Zenodo (2026). doi:10.5281/zenodo.23735569
R. Arróyave, J. Saal, D. Shin, ORCHID-Parity: DFT-vs-experiment formation-enthalpy benchmark (version 2026.10; Version 1, machine-extracted), Zenodo (2026). doi:10.5281/zenodo.23735943
R. Arróyave, J. Saal, D. Shin, ORCHID data: umbrella record of the ORCHID datasets (version 2026.10; Version 1, machine-extracted), Zenodo (2026). doi:10.5281/zenodo.23736065

Also cite the original source of every value you use (paper_citation / paper_doi, and cited_dois for values the paper cites from earlier work); A. Jain et al., The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation, APL Materials 1 (2013) 011002, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4812323 (CC BY 4.0); J. E. Saal et al., JOM 65 (2013) 1501, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-013-0755-4 and S. Kirklin et al., npj Comput. Mater. 1 (2015) 15010, https://doi.org/10.1038/npjcompumats.2015.10 (CC BY 4.0); G. Kim, S. V. Meschel, P. Nash, W. Chen, Experimental formation enthalpies for intermetallic phases and other inorganic compounds, Scientific Data 4 (2017) 170162, https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.162; B. Hallstedt, The SGTE collection of binary datasets, Calphad 89 (2025) 102833, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.calphad.2025.102833 (CC BY 4.0), and the original assessment named in each file. Version 1, machine-extracted: values were read by language-model readers constrained to quote their source and checked automatically, and the release was then audited on the printed pages by adversarial audits, an independent second review of fit-facing records and a preliminary human review of a frozen sample. Flags such as accepted and ESPEI-ready record screening results, not certification; known issues are listed in the release notes.

@misc{orchid_literature_2026,
  author    = {Arr{\'o}yave, Raymundo and Saal, James and Shin, Dongwon},
  title     = {{ORCHID-Values: thermodynamic and phase-equilibrium values read from the literature}},
  version   = {2026.10},
  publisher = {Zenodo},
  year      = {2026},
  doi       = {10.5281/zenodo.23735569},
  url       = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23735569},
  note      = {Version 1, machine-extracted}
}

@misc{orchid_dft_benchmark_2026,
  author    = {Arr{\'o}yave, Raymundo and Saal, James and Shin, Dongwon},
  title     = {{ORCHID-Parity: DFT-vs-experiment formation-enthalpy benchmark}},
  version   = {2026.10},
  publisher = {Zenodo},
  year      = {2026},
  doi       = {10.5281/zenodo.23735943},
  url       = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23735943},
  note      = {Version 1, machine-extracted}
}

@misc{orchid_data_2026,
  author    = {Arr{\'o}yave, Raymundo and Saal, James and Shin, Dongwon},
  title     = {{ORCHID data: umbrella record of the ORCHID datasets}},
  version   = {2026.10},
  publisher = {Zenodo},
  year      = {2026},
  doi       = {10.5281/zenodo.23736065},
  url       = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23736065},
  note      = {Version 1, machine-extracted}
}