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 OpenAlexvenueno aff
D.T. Nhan, Gerald H. Pollack

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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

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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and EcodynamicsSame topicChemical and Physical StudiesFrench-language works237,207