Studies on Binary and Ternary Amphiphile Combinations of Tetradecyltrimethylammonium Bromide (C<sub>14</sub>TAB), Tetradecyltriphenylphosphonium Bromide (C<sub>14</sub>TPB), and Tetradecylpyridinium Bromide (C<sub>14</sub>PB). A Critical Analysis of Their Interfacial and Bulk Behaviors
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mixed surfactants play a promising role in surface chemical applications. In this study, interfacial and bulk behaviors of binary and ternary combinations of tetradecyltrimethylammonium bromide (C(14)TAB), tetradecyltriphenylphosphonium bromide (C(14)TPB), and tetradecylpyridinium bromide (C(14)PB) have been examined in detail using the methods of tensiometry, conductometry, fluorimetry, and microcalorimetry. The state of micellar aggregation, amphiphile composition in the micelle, extent of counterion binding by the micelle, and interaction among the surfactant monomers in the binary and ternary combinations have been quantitatively assessed in the light of the regular solution theories of Rubingh and that of Rubingh and Holland. The monomer packing in the micelles and their expected shapes have also been estimated from topological considerations. Conceptual rationalization of results has been presented together with associated energetics of the interfacial adsorption and self-aggregation in the bulk.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it