MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051907709 · doi:10.1002/masy.201100002

Effect of Chain Microstructure and Cooling Rate on Crystaf Calibration Curves: An Experimental Study

2012· article· en· W2051907709 on OpenAlexaff
Punnawit Somnukguande, Siripon Anantawaraskul, João B. P. Soares

Bibliographic record

VenueMacromolecular Symposia · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer crystallization and properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComonomerCrystallizationCalibration curveIsothermal processMaterials scienceCalibrationMicrostructureAnalytical Chemistry (journal)PolymerMolar mass distributionCopolymerFractionationThermodynamicsChromatographyChemistryComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Summary: Crystallization analysis fractionation (Crystaf) is a polymer characterization technique based on differences in chain crystallizabilities in a dilute solution during non‐isothermal crystallization. Crystaf profiles, a weight distribution function of chains crystallized at each temperature, can be used to infer the chemical composition distribution (CCD) of copolymers when a Crystaf calibration curve, a relationship between peak crystallization temperature and average comonomer content, is known. In this investigation, the effect of the number average molecular weight, comonomer type, and cooling rate on Crystaf calibration curves were experimentally investigated. It was found that the cooling rate and comonomer type may strongly affect Crystaf calibration curves, while the influence of molecular weight is relatively subtle.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacromolecular SymposiaSame topicPolymer crystallization and propertiesFrench-language works237,207