Model for Calculating the Density of Aqueous Electrolyte Solutions
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
A new model for calculating the density of aqueous solutions of electrolytes has been developed. Parameters for 59 electrolytes were established on the basis of an extensive critical review of the published literature for solutions of one electrolyte in water, with over 10 700 points included. The average difference between the calculated and experimental density of solutions of water and one electrolyte is 0.10 kg m -3 with a standard deviation of 1.44 kg m -3 . The model was validated by predicting the density of systems of two or more electrolytes in water. The average difference between experimental and calculated values for over 1600 points is 0.003 kg m -3 with a standard deviation of 1.39 kg m -3 . The electrolytes studied are AlCl 3, Al 2 (SO 4 ) 3, BaCl 2, CaCl 2, CdCl 2, CdSO 4, CoCl 2, CoSO 4, CrCl 3, Cr 2 (SO 4 ) 3, CuCl 2, CuSO 4, FeCl 2, FeSO 4, FeCl 3, Fe 2 (SO 4 ) 3, HCl, HCN, HNO 3, H 3 PO 4, H 2 SO 4, KCl, K 2 CO 3, KNO 3, KOH, K 2 SO 4, LiCl, Li 2 SO 4, MgCl 2, MgSO 4, MnCl 2, MnSO 4, NaBr, NaCl, NaClO 3, Na 2 CO 3, NaF, NaHCO 3, NaH 2 PO 4, Na 2 HPO 4, NaHSO 3, NaI, Na 2 MoO 4, NaNO 2, NaNO 3, NaOH, Na 3 PO 4, Na 2 SO 3, Na 2 S 2 O 3, Na 2 SO 4, NH 3, NH 4 Cl, NH 4 NO 3, (NH 4 ) 2 SO 4, NiCl 2, NiSO 4, SrCl 2, ZnCl 2, and ZnSO 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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