MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986485484 · doi:10.1080/14786430903170579

Hierarchy of equations for the surface tension of solids

2009· article· en· W1986485484 on OpenAlexaff
V. A. Marichev

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Philosophical Magazine A Journal of Theoretical Experimental and Applied Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersRussian Academy of Sciences
KeywordsHierarchyMathematicsIndependent equationCorrectnessSimultaneous equationsSurface (topology)Surface tensionMathematical analysisPhysicsDifferential equationThermodynamicsGeometryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Of the four main equations in thermodynamics for the surface tension of condensed matter, i.e. the generalized and classical Lippmann equations and the Shuttleworth and Gokhshtein equations, only the classical Lippmann and Gokhshtein equations have been confirmed experimentally. The generalized Lippmann (Couchman–Davidson) equation is considered to be more universal, since three other equations could be derived from it. Although this fact has been widely accepted, it was recently reevaluated in two opposite ways. In the first approach, the experimental verification of the Gokhshtein equation should support the correctness of the generalized Lippmann and Shuttleworth equations. In the second approach, the incompatibility of the Shuttleworth equation with Hermann's mathematical structure of thermodynamics throws doubts upon all its corollaries, including the generalized Lippmann and Gokhshtein equations. However, both of these approaches are here shown to be erroneous, since the Gokhshtein equation cannot be correctly derived from any of the above-mentioned equations, and the opposite is also true: neither the generalized Lippmann nor Shuttleworth equations could be derived from the Gokhshtein equation.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.279
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Philosophical Magazine A Journal of Theoretical Experimental and Applied PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Thermodynamics and Statistical MechanicsFrench-language works237,207