MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975117973 · doi:10.1039/c5sm00247h

Stimuli-responsive Pickering emulsions: recent advances and potential applications

2015· article· en· W1975117973 on OpenAlex

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

VenueSoft Matter · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPickering emulsions and particle stabilization
Canadian institutionsNational Institute for NanotechnologyUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPickering emulsionEmulsionNanotechnologyMaterials scienceIntensity (physics)Chemical engineeringChemistryEngineeringPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pickering emulsions possess many advantages over traditional surfactant stabilized emulsions. For example, Pickering emulsions impart better stability against coalescence and, in many cases, are biologically compatible and environmentally friendly. These characteristics open the door for their use in a variety of industries spanning petroleum, food, biomedicine, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics. Depending on the application, rapid, but controlled stabilization and destabilization of an emulsion may be necessary. As a result, Pickering emulsions with stimuli-responsive properties have, in recent years, received a considerable amounts of attention. This paper provides a concise and comprehensive review of Pickering emulsion systems that possess the ability to respond to an array of external triggers, including pH, temperature, CO2 concentration, light intensity, ionic strength, and magnetic field. Potential applications for which stimuli-responsive Pickering emulsion systems would be of particular value, such as emulsion polymerization, enhanced oil recovery, catalyst recovery, and cosmetics, are discussed.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

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)0.0000.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.264 · 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