MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974226525 · doi:10.1002/ceat.201000237

A Sequential Iterative Scheme for Design of Experiments in Complex Polymerizations

2010· article· en· W1974226525 on OpenAlex
Afsaneh Nabifar, Neil T. McManus, Eduardo Vivaldo‐Lima, Alexander Penlidis

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Engineering & Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Polymer Synthesis and Characterization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBayesian probabilitySet (abstract data type)Design of experimentsIterative and incremental developmentProcess (computing)Sequential analysisBayesian optimizationOptimal designScheme (mathematics)Experimental dataMathematical optimizationAlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Bayesian design approach is an experimental design technique which has many advantages over standard experimental designs. It incorporates prior knowledge about the process into the design to suggest a set of future experiments in an optimal, sequential, and iterative fashion. Since for many complex polymerizations prior information is available, either in the form of experimental data or mathematical models, the use of Bayesian design methodology could be beneficial. Exploiting this technique in complex polymerizations could hopefully lead to optimal performance in fewer trials, thus saving time and money. Advantages of the Bayesian design approach are illustrated via case studies drawn from the nitroxide‐mediated radical polymerization as an example. However, since this technique is perfectly general, it can be potentially applied to other polymerization variants.

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.

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 score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.242 · 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