Bibliographic record
Abstract
An effective description for spherical nanoparticles in a fluid of point particles is presented. The points inside the nanoparticles and the point particles are assumed to interact via spherically symmetric additive pair potentials, while the distribution of points inside the nanoparticles is taken to be spherically symmetric and smooth. The resulting effective pair interactions between a nanoparticle and a point particle, as well as between two nanoparticles, are then given by spherically symmetric potentials. If overlap between particles is allowed, the effective potential generally has non-analytic points, but for each effective potential the expressions for different overlapping cases can be written in terms of one analytic auxiliary potential. Effective potentials for hollow nanoparticles (appropriate e.g. for buckyballs) are also considered, and shown to be related to those for solid nanoparticles. Finally, explicit expressions are given for the effective potentials derived from basic pair potentials of power law and exponential form, as well as from the commonly used London-Van der Waals, Morse, Buckingham, and Lennard-Jones potential. The applicability of the latter is demonstrated by comparison with an atomic description of nanoparticles with an internal face centered cubic structure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".