MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987075800 · doi:10.1063/1.1948373

On the notion of “1∕f noise” and data analysis for glassy water

2005· letter· en· W1987075800 on OpenAlexaff
G. P. Johari

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2005
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMaterial Dynamics and Properties
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDielectric lossDielectricRelaxation (psychology)DipoleDissipation factorNoise (video)Condensed matter physicsFunction (biology)Statistical physicsMaterials sciencePhysicsQuantum mechanicsPsychologyComputer scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is argued that the measured dielectric loss is the sum of a background loss and a dipolar relaxation loss, and both should be considered in a dielectric spectrum analysis. The background loss can be determined by fitting a relaxation function to the spectral peak region. It is also shown that the dielectric loss tangent tanδ of glassy water, which has been rejected as “1∕f noise” [A. Minoguchi, R. Richert, and C. A. Angell, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 215703 (2004)], contains a large contribution from dipole relaxation loss, and its tanδ neither remains constant with change in f nor varies as 1∕f. The incorrect attribution of water’s tanδ of Minoguchi et al. puts into question the basis of their analysis.

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)0.001
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 score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicMaterial Dynamics and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207