MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979313639 · doi:10.1002/app.21488

Solubility of ethylene in toluene and toluene/styrene–butadiene rubber solutions

2005· article· en· W1979313639 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

VenueJournal of Applied Polymer Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicThermal and Kinetic Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUNIFACTolueneEthyleneSolubilityStyrene-butadieneCopolymerNatural rubberStyrenePolymer chemistryChemistryMaterials scienceTernary operationHildebrand solubility parameterThermodynamicsOrganic chemistryChemical engineeringActivity coefficientCatalysisPolymerAqueous solution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The solubility of ethylene in toluene and in toluene (90 wt %)/styrene–butadiene rubber (SBR; 10 wt %) solutions was determined because the solubility data were of interest for the kinetic study of the metallocene‐catalyzed homopolymerization of ethylene and the copolymerization of ethylene with α‐olefins. The data were obtained over the temperature range of 293–343 K and the pressure range of 50–180 psi. An original Universal Functional Group Activity Coefficient (UNIFAC) model was applied for the ethylene–toluene system, and a UNIFAC‐ZM model (a modified UNIFAC model proposed by Zhong and Masuoka et al.) was applied for the ethylene–toluene/SBR ternary system. Henry's law was also used to correlate the experimental results of the two systems. A comparison was made between the UNIFAC models and Henry's law. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 96: 645–649, 2005

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)0.002
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.228 · 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