Why this differs from similar rows:
EOS-derived value from a volumetric fit (V0=159.6, K0=264.3, K'=3.94) for x=0; sibling row instead reports elastic-constant-derived (VRH-averaged) moduli from Eulerian strain fits.
Why this differs from similar rows:
EOS-derived volumetric fit for x=0.25, spin-polarized with Fe on the large 4c site (V0=160.5, K0=270, K'=3.96); sibling row instead reports VRH-averaged elastic-constant moduli.
Why this differs from similar rows:
Table 1 value from third-order Eulerian strain fits to elastic constants, VRH-averaged (K=263, K'=4.06); sibling row instead reports the volumetric EOS fit (K0=264.3, K'=3.94).
Why this differs from similar rows:
Table 1 value from Eulerian strain fits to elastic constants, VRH-averaged, x=0.25 (K=268, K'=4.10); sibling row instead reports the volumetric EOS fit (K0=270, K'=3.96).
Why this differs from similar rows:
Cites Wentzcovitch et al. [1998] first-principles calculation; sibling rows cite different original studies (Karki et al. 1997; Oganov et al. 2001b).
Why this differs from similar rows:
Cites Karki et al. [1997] first-principles calculation; sibling rows cite different original studies (Wentzcovitch et al. 1998; Oganov et al. 2001b).
Why this differs from similar rows:
Cites Oganov et al. [2001b] GGA calculation; text explicitly attributes its substantially lower value to the GGA functional, vs LDA used by sibling rows.