Solubility predictions for crystalline nonelectrolyte solutes dissolved in organic solvents based upon the Abraham general solvation model
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
The Abraham general solvation model is used to predict the saturation solubility of crystalline nonelectrolyte solutes in organic solvents. The derived equations take the form of log (C S /C W ) = c + rR 2 + sπ 2 H + aΣα 2 H + bΣβ 2 H + vV x and log (C S /C G ) = c + rR 2 + sπ 2 H + aΣα 2 H + bΣβ 2 H + l log L (16) where C S and C W refer to the solute solubility in the organic solvent and water, respectively, C G is a gas-phase concentration, R 2 is the solute's excess molar refraction, V x is McGowan volume of the solute, Σα 2 H and Σβ 2 H are measures of the solute's hydrogen-bond acidity and hydrogen-bond basicity, π 2 H denotes the solute's dipolarity and (or) polarizability descriptor, and log L (16) is the solute's gas-phase dimensionless Ostwald partition coefficient into hexadecane at 298 K. The remaining symbols in the above expressions are known equation coefficients, which have been determined previously for a large number of gassolvent and watersolvent systems. Computations show that the Abraham general solvation model predicts the observed solubility behavior of anthracene, phenanthrene, and hexachlorobenzene to within an average absolute deviation of about ±35%.Key words: solubility predictions, organic solvents, nonelectrolyte solutes, partition coefficients.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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