MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008769538 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.75.064203

Coexistence curve of the<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mtext>−</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>heptane</mml:mtext><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mtext>nitrobenzene</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math>mixture near its consolute point measured by an optical method

2007· article· lv· W2008769538 on OpenAlexaff
Nicola Fameli, David A. Balzarini

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review B · 2007
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldChemistry
TopicPhotochemistry and Electron Transfer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsNitrobenzeneAlgorithmThermodynamicsCombinatoricsMathematicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have measured the coexistence curve of the binary liquid mixture $n\text{\ensuremath{-}}\text{heptane}+\text{nitrobenzene}$ $({\mathrm{C}}_{7}{\mathrm{H}}_{16}+{\mathrm{C}}_{6}{\mathrm{H}}_{5}\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{O}}_{2})$ near its consolute point using an optical method. In particular, the critical exponent $\ensuremath{\beta}$ describing the coexistence curve was measured for this system. Previous experimental values of $\ensuremath{\beta}$ for $n\text{\ensuremath{-}}\text{heptane}+\text{nitrobenzene}$ were higher than the typical theoretically calculated value, an unusual, although not unique, occurrence. In an effort to study this discrepancy, we have used an improved experimental apparatus for our measurements. We have taken special care to minimize temperature gradients and maximize the temperature stability of our thermal control system. We have also exploited features of a known optical method to analyze, thoroughly, sources of systematic errors. We measured an apparent value of $\ensuremath{\beta}$ as $0.367\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.006$ and by a careful study of the known sources of error we find that they are not able to remove the discrepancy between the measured and the theoretical values of $\ensuremath{\beta}$. We also measured the critical temperature of the system at ${T}_{C}=(291.80\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.02)\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\mathrm{K}$ $(18.65\phantom{\rule{0.2em}{0ex}}\ifmmode^\circ\else\textdegree\fi{}\mathrm{C})$.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.258 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations11
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review BSame topicPhotochemistry and Electron Transfer StudiesFrench-language works237,207