MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989265974 · doi:10.1088/0305-4470/38/6/002

Localization of random copolymers and the Morita approximation

2005· article· en· W1989265974 on OpenAlexafffund
G K Iliev, Andrew Rechnitzer, S G Whittington

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and General · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTheoretical and Computational Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAustralian Mathematical Sciences InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Melbourne
KeywordsPhase diagramRandom phase approximationPhase (matter)Plane (geometry)Focus (optics)Statistical physicsMathematicsPhysicsGeometryQuantum mechanicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We discuss and analyse the Morita approximation for a number of different models of quenched random copolymer localization at the interface between two immiscible liquids. We focus on two directed models, bilateral Dyck paths and bilateral Motzkin paths, for which this approximation can be carried through analytically. We study the form of the phase diagram and find that the Morita approximation gives phase boundaries which are qualitatively correct. This is also true when a monomer–interface interaction is included in the model. When this interaction is attractive it can lead to separation of the phase boundaries, which is also a feature of the quenched problem. We note the existence of non-analytic points on the phase boundaries which may reflect tricritical points on the phase boundaries of the full quenched average problem. In certain regions of the phase plane this approximation can be extended to the self-avoiding walk model.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and GeneralSame topicTheoretical and Computational PhysicsFrench-language works237,207