MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090730409 · doi:10.2495/dne-v6-n2-139-144

Effect of particle diameter on exclusion-zone size

2011· article· en· W2090730409 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChemical and Physical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsMicrosphereParticle sizeBeadMaterials scienceNanotechnologyParticle (ecology)Range (aeronautics)CuvetteAqueous solutionOpticsChemistryChemical engineeringComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Particles and solutes are excluded from the vicinity of hydrophilic surfaces, leaving large microsphere-free regions known as exclusion zones (EZs). Prior work had indicated that EZs could extend to distances of up to several hundred micrometers from the nucleating surface. These observations were made on large, extended surfaces, leaving open the question whether EZ size might depend on the characteristic dimension of the excluding surface. We placed one or few ion-exchange-resin beads whose diameters varied from 15 μm to 300 μm in cuvettes. The beads were suffused with aqueous microsphere suspensions for observing the surfaces' exclusionary behavior. Results showed a direct relation between bead size and EZ size over the full range of bead diameter, implying a similar relation for smaller particles or molecules, perhaps extending beyond the resolution of the light microscope.

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 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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.239 · 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