MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061330520 · doi:10.1021/jp027703i

Pulsed Field Gradient NMR Study of the Diffusion of H<sub>2</sub>O and Polyethylene Glycol Polymers in the Supramolecular Structure of Wet Cotton

2003· article· en· W2061330520 on OpenAlexaff
Benedict Newling, Stephen N. Batchelor

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry B · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicTextile materials and evaluations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulsed field gradientDiffusionTortuosityChemistryAmorphous solidSupramolecular chemistryFiberPolymerPolyethylene glycolAnalytical Chemistry (journal)MoleculeCrystallographyPorosityThermodynamicsChromatographyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PFG NMR results are reported on H 2 O, PEG200, PEG1500, PEG8000, and PEG20000 in wet cotton fibers and H 2 O in wet cotton linters. The data are analyzed in terms of a two-site exchange model (water/cotton) and show that the probe molecules in fibers are trapped in cages. The cage size decreases from 10 to 2 μm as the probes' size increases from 0.23 to 9.2 nm, although the overall accessible volume only decreases from 50 to 20−30%. This behavior may be explained by size-exclusion effects on the connectivity and accessibility. Analysis of the diffusion coefficients at short diffusion times indicates that fiber cages are water pools held between the growth rings of the fiber. In linters these cages do not occur, and a freely diffusing signal from H 2 O in the amorphous region is observed with D = (4.5−8.9) × 10 -11 m 2 s -1, which when compared to the predicted value from the microviscosity of the amorphous regions gives a tortuosity of 2−4. Exit of all probes from linters and fibers takes 0.2 s and requires hydrogen bonds to be broken with an activation energy of 50 kJ mol -1 .

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations24
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry BSame topicTextile materials and evaluationsFrench-language works237,207