MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992391963 · doi:10.1139/v99-243

Solubility of the pesticide diuron in organic nonelectrolyte solvents. Comparison of observed vs. predicted values based upon Mobile Order theory

2000· article· en· W1992391963 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Karina M. De Fina, Tina L. Sharp, Michael A. Spurgin, Ivette Chuca, William E. Acree, Caroline E. Green, Michael H. Abraham

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCrystallization and Solubility Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean CommissionUniversity College LondonUniversity of North Texas
KeywordsChemistrySolubilitySolventSaturation (graph theory)EtherMole fractionAlcoholHildebrand solubility parameterInorganic chemistryOrganic chemistryPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experimental solubilities are reported at 25.0°C for diuron (also called 3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethyl urea) dissolved in 49 different organic nonelectrolyte solvents containing ether-, chloro-, hydroxy-, ester-, methyl-, and tert-butyl-functional groups. Results of these measurements are used to test the applications and limitations of expressions derived from Mobile Order theory. For the 28 nonalcoholic solvents for which predictions could be made computations show that Mobile Order theory does provide fairly reasonable estimates of the saturation mole fraction solubilities. Average absolute deviation between predicted and observed values is 60.1%. Diuron solubilities in the alcohol solvents are used to calculate stability constants for presumed solute-solvent hydrogen bonds that are believed to occur in solution.Key words: pesticide, diuron solubilities, organic nonelectrolyte solvents, solubility predictions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.239
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 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

Citations23
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicCrystallization and Solubility StudiesFrench-language works237,207