MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058521700 · doi:10.1021/la061310j

Induced Phase Separation in Low-Ionic-Strength Cellulose Nanocrystal Suspensions Containing High-Molecular-Weight Blue Dextrans

2006· article· en· W2058521700 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie Beck-Candanedo, David Viet, Derek G. Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueLangmuir · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLiquid Crystal Research Advancements
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCelluloseColloidIonic strengthPhase (matter)Ionic liquidMacromoleculeDextranChemistryChemical engineeringAqueous solutionMaterials scienceChromatographyOrganic chemistryCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spontaneous entropic phase separation phenomena occur in a wide range of systems containing highly anisotropic colloidal particles. Among these are aqueous suspensions of negatively charged cellulose I nanocrystals produced by sulfuric acid hydrolysis of native cellulose, which phase separate into isotropic and chiral nematic liquid-crystalline phases. Phase separation of an isotropic phase from a completely ordered nanocrystal suspension may be induced by the addition of salts or nonadsorbing macromolecules. In previous work (Edgar, C. D.; Gray, D. G. Macromolecules 2002, 35, 7400-7406), an isotropic phase was found to form over a period of several days when blue dextran (a sulfonated triazine dye, Cibacron blue 3G-A, covalently attached to high-molecular-weight dextran chains) was added to initially ordered suspensions. Here we report work showing that the observed phase separation was associated with the charged dye molecules attached to the dextran. The Cibacron blue 3G-A dye attached to blue dextran was found to induce greater phase separation than free (unbound) dye; at increasing ionic strength, depletion attractions due to the blue dextran increasingly contribute to the phase separation.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.819

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 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

Citations45
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLangmuirSame topicLiquid Crystal Research AdvancementsFrench-language works237,207