MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011699831 · doi:10.1088/1751-8113/47/1/015004

Pulling adsorbed self-avoiding walks from a surface

2013· article· en· W2011699831 on OpenAlexaff
A J Guttmann, Iwan Jensen, S G Whittington

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTheoretical and Computational Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdsorptionSquare latticePhase transitionVertex (graph theory)Phase (matter)Phase boundarySelf-avoiding walkSurface (topology)PolymerCondensed matter physicsPhysicsStatistical physicsLattice (music)Materials scienceChemical physicsThermodynamicsChemistryGraphRandom walkMathematicsPhysical chemistryQuantum mechanicsCombinatoricsNuclear magnetic resonanceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a self-avoiding walk model of polymer adsorption where the adsorbed polymer can be desorbed by the application of a force, concentrating on the case of the square lattice. Using series analysis methods we investigate the behaviour of the free energy of the system when there is an attractive potential with the surface and a force f applied at the last vertex, normal to the surface, and extract the phase boundary between the ballistic and adsorbed phases. We believe this to be exact to graphical accuracy. We give precise estimates of the location of the transition from the free phase to the ballistic phase, which we find to be at y c = exp ( f / k B T c ) = 1, and from the free phase to the adsorbed phase, which we estimate to be at a c = exp ( − / k B T c ) = 1.775 615 ± 0.000 005. In addition we prove that the phase transition from the ballistic to the adsorbed phase is first order.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations24
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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