MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1824716710 · doi:10.1139/cjc-2015-0099

Revealing the parameters to design the habit modifiers for rock-salt crystals: empirical to rational approach

2015· article· en· W1824716710 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anik Sen, Sunirmal Barik, Ajeet Singh, Bishwajit Ganguly

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCrystallization and Solubility Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryImpuritySalt (chemistry)Crystal habitPartition coefficientSodiumHabitRational designSolventMineralogyChemical engineeringInorganic chemistryOrganic chemistryCrystallizationNanotechnologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Morphology of rock-salt crystals can be influenced by internal and external factors like temperature, super saturations, solvent, and impurities. Many impurities and additives have been reported to date for the habit modification of common salt; however, the selection of such impurities is largely empirical. The partition coefficient or log P, which is a measure of hydrophobic hydrophilic property of a material, very aptly signifies the ability of additives to modulate the morphology of sodium chloride crystals. Application of the partition coefficient of additives led to the discovery of two new habit modifiers (cytosine and DMSO) for rock-salt crystals. The predicted results have been verified by experimental studies. Furthermore, the known habit modifiers and also the nonhabit modifiers for sodium chloride crystals corroborate the importance of this parameter to define the morphology of salt crystals. This study is of fundamental importance, which otherwise was rather empirical for the last two centuries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicCrystallization and Solubility StudiesFrench-language works237,207