Bibliographic record
Abstract
The basis for the conjecture that water’s Tg may be 165±5 K [Velikov, Borick, and Angell, Science 294, 2335 (2001)] has been examined. It is shown that (i) differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) scans provided by Hallbrucker and Mayer [J. Phys. Chem. 91, 503 (1987)], and used as a basis for the conjecture, do not represent the heat capacity of the assumed, slow-cooled glassy water or of hyperquenched glassy water, and (ii) there is no fundamental requirement that the excess heat capacity show a peak at T<Tg—instead the peak may appear at T<Tg, at Tg, or at T>Tg. On heating, the enthalpy of glasses produced by hyperquenching or rapid cooling begins to decrease at a much lower T than that of the glasses obtained by slow cooling. Annealing increases this temperature toward Tg, and the enthalpy decrease continues at T above Tg. In the enthalpy relaxation region, the diffusion coefficient of the hyperquenched glassy state is higher than that of a slow-cooled glassy state at a given T, and a local minimum in the DSC scan does not appear at T<Tg in several glasses. These findings remove the basis for the conjecture that water’s Tg may be ∼165 K. Several analyses confirm that the known sigmoid-shape endotherm of glassy water represents the glass-softening range with onset temperature of 136 K. The DSC scans of a glassy state similar to that of water have been simulated by using a nonlinear, nonexponential enthalpy relaxation formalism. These show that a peak in the difference scan of the simulated glass appears above its Tg of 136 K.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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".