MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Confining multiple polymers between sticky walls: a directed walk model of two polymers

2014· article· en· W2021528393 on OpenAlexafffund
Thomas G. Wong, A L Owczarek, Andrew Rechnitzer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAustralian Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSlitPolymerPlane (geometry)Limit (mathematics)Lattice (music)Square latticePhysicsChemistryStatistical physicsOpticsMathematicsGeometryMathematical analysisIsing model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study a model of two polymers confined to a slit with sticky walls. More precisely, we find and analyse the exact solution of two directed friendly walks in such a geometry on the square lattice. We compare the infinite slit limit, in which the length of the polymer (thermodynamic limit) is taken to infinity before the width of the slit is considered to become large, to the opposite situation where the order of the limits are swapped, known as the half-plane limit when one polymer is modelled. In contrast with the single polymer system we find that the half-plane and infinite slit limits coincide. We understand this result in part due to the tethering of polymers on both walls of the slit. We also analyse the entropic force exerted by the polymers on the walls of the slit. Again the results differ significantly from single polymer models. In a single polymer system both attractive and repulsive regimes were seen, whereas in our two walk model only repulsive forces are observed. We do, however, see that the range of the repulsive force is dependent on the parameter values. This variation can be explained by the adsorption of the walks on opposite walls of the slit. 1 ar

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalSame topicForce Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207