MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034217906 · doi:10.1002/mats.200390024

Chemical Composition Distribution of Multicomponent Copolymers

2003· article· en· W2034217906 on OpenAlex
Siripon Anantawaraskul, João B. P. Soares, Paula M. Wood‐Adams

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMacromolecular Theory and Simulations · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Nanocomposites and Properties
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversity of WaterlooMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopolymerChemical compositionMonte Carlo methodLimitingMolar mass distributionComposition (language)Distribution (mathematics)Binary numberThermodynamicsMaterials scienceStatistical physicsChemistryPhysicsMathematicsPolymerStatisticsOrganic chemistryMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The number and weight chemical composition distributions in random terpolymers were derived using a statistical approach. The solution was then generalized to comprise higher multicomponent copolymers. The analytical solution was verified with Monte Carlo simulations and by considering limiting cases. Chemical composition distributions for fractions of random terpolymers of various kinetic chain lengths were also investigated. In a similar way to the results for binary copolymers described by Stockmayer's distribution, broadening of the distribution is observed for low‐molecular‐weight chains. Comparison of chemical composition distributions from Stockmayer (Equation ( 3 )) and statistical approach (Equation ( 4 )). image Comparison of chemical composition distributions from Stockmayer (Equation ( 3 )) and statistical approach (Equation ( 4 )).

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.220 · 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