MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089137349 · doi:10.1063/1.2210012

Dielectric relaxation and elasticity during polymerization

2006· article· en· W2089137349 on OpenAlexaff
K. Venkateshan, G. P. Johari

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMaterial Dynamics and Properties
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolymerizationDielectricEnergy landscapeElasticity (physics)ChemistryRelaxation (psychology)ThermodynamicsMaxima and minimaActivation energyCondensed matter physicsMolecular physicsPolymerPhysicsPhysical chemistryQuantum mechanicsMathematicsOrganic chemistryMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A molecular kinetics-elasticity relation has been investigated by using real time dielectric spectroscopy of a diepoxide-triamine liquid mixture polymerizing at 298 K. As the liquid polymerized, the dielectric relaxation time tau increased linearly with the exponential of the known value of the instantaneous shear modulus G(infinity), in agreement with the elastic model for viscous flow but without the effect of temperature. Thus the structure-dependent effect on the Brownian motions are separated from the temperature-dependent effect. In this time-dependent process, increase in G(infinity) may be compensated by an increase in T, thereby keeping G(infinity) and tau constant. In the potential energy landscape paradigm, a polymerizing liquid's state point, like a normal liquid's on cooling, continuously shifts to deeper and lower energy minima of higher curvature, but the shift occurs irreversibly to other parts of the total energy landscape, thus adding a reaction coordinate to the landscape. A minimum in the energy landscape corresponding to a structure formed by polymerization may be identical to a minimum in another landscape corresponding to another structure.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations10
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicMaterial Dynamics and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207