MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018896363 · doi:10.2495/dne-v6-n4-286-296

Exclusion-zone formation from discontinuous nafion surfaces

2011· article· en· W2018896363 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xavier A. Figueroa, Gerald H. Pollack

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChemical and Physical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsMerge (version control)PolymerMaterials scienceAqueous solutionNanotechnologyMicrosphereNafionChemical engineeringChemical physicsComposite materialChemistryComputer scienceEngineeringPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many hydrophilic materials in aqueous solution show near-surface zones that exclude suspended colloids and dissolved molecules. These exclusion zones (EZs) can extend for tens to hundreds of micrometers from the hydrophilic surface, and show physicochemical properties that differ from bulk water. So far, only continuous surfaces of polymers, gels, or biological specimens have been studied. In this report, we explore the interactions between exclusion zones generated by discontinuous, regularly spaced EZ-generating surfaces, namely strips of Nafion on a glass surface. Various inter-strip spacings were studied. When Nafion surfaces are separated by 100 micrometers or less, EZs merged with one another, forming a single, continuous, stable EZ. Separations larger than 100 micrometers produced discontinuous EZs that did not merge. This result has implication for the mechanism by which independent EZs can merge with one another.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations19
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and EcodynamicsSame topicChemical and Physical StudiesFrench-language works237,207