MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080152733 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20546

Density, refractive index, excess molar volumes and deviations in molar refraction at 298.15 K for binary and ternary mixtures of DIPE (OR TAME) + 1‐methanol (or 1‐propanol) + trihexyltetra‐decylphosphonium bis (2,4,4‐trimethylpentyl) phosphinate

2011· article· en· W2080152733 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jae‐Yeon Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicThermodynamic properties of mixtures
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Education and Human Resources Development
KeywordsTernary operationMolarMethanolChemistryPropanolRefractionRefractive indexMolar volumeBinary numberDiisopropyl etherTernary numeral systemEtherAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ThermodynamicsMaterials scienceOrganic chemistryOpticsMathematicsOrthodonticsPhysicsPhase (matter)Arithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The excess molar volumes ( V E ) and the deviations in molar refraction (Δ R ) at 298.15 K were determined for the binary systems {diisopropyl ether (DIPE) + 1‐propanol}, { Tert ‐amyl methyl ether (TAME) + methanol}, {DIPE + trihexyltetradecylphosphonium bis(2,4,4‐trimethylpentyl)phosphinate ([P 666,14 ][TMPP])}, {TAME + [P 666,14 ][TMPP]}, {methanol + [P 666,14 ][TMPP]} and {1‐propanol + [P 666,14 ][TMPP]} using a digital vibrating‐tube densimeter and a precision digital refractometer. The V E and Δ R were correlated with the Redlich–Kister equation for binary systems. In addition, the ternary V E and Δ R data at 298.15 K were predicted for the ternary systems {DIPE + 1‐propanol + [P 666,14 ][TMPP]} and {TAME + methanol + [P 666,14 ][TMPP]} by using the binary contribution model of Radojkovič with correlated sub‐binary Redlich–Kister parameters. © 2011 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering

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)0.001
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicThermodynamic properties of mixturesFrench-language works237,207