MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974819582 · doi:10.1063/1.3664740

Reversible Oregonator model revisited: Thermodynamic validity

2011· article· en· W1974819582 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Arun K. Dutt

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP Advances · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNonlinear Dynamics and Pattern Formation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsThermodynamic equilibriumThermodynamicsStatistical physicsWork (physics)Equilibrium constantDiffusionKinetic energyPhysicsChemistryClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have investigated the features of thermodynamic equilibrium state of the reversible Oregonator (RO) model with close system approximation for a plausible stoichiometry, in which there is no overall change in the concentrations of the intermediates. For Field-Försterling (ff) parameters, this model with close system approximation attains the state of thermodynamic equilibrium at equilibrium concentration of its final product in the order of 104 mol l-1, which is obviously unrealistic in a laboratory experiment. From numerical experiment, we report that if the equilibrium constant of the fifth step (K5) is assigned a value less than 1.0 (which is opposite to that proposed by Field), the RO model under open system approximation could execute oscillations, as well as under close system approximation could evolve to a thermodynamic equilibrium state with reasonably low and realistic equilibrium concentration of its final product for the overall reaction considered here. To accommodate the findings of this numerical work for the RO kinetic steps with K5 <1, we have found it necessary to revise the 2-variable diffusion-reaction model of Tyson.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP AdvancesSame topicNonlinear Dynamics and Pattern FormationFrench-language works237,207