Experimental determination of the third derivative of G. I. Enthalpic interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The solute (i)-solute interaction in terms of enthalpy, H(i-i) (E)=N( partial differential(2)H(E)/ partial differentialn(i) (2))=(1-x(i))( partial differential(2)H(E)/ partial differentialn(i) partial differentialx(i)), the third derivative of G, was experimentally determined using a Thermal Activity Monitor isothermal titration calorimeter for aqueous solutions of 2-butoxyethanol (BE) and 1-propanol (1P). This was done using both calorimetric reference and sample vessels actively. We simultaneously titrate small and exactly equal amounts of solute i (=BE or 1P) into both cells which contain the binary mixtures at an average mole fraction, x(i), which differs by a small amount Deltax(i). The appropriate amount of titrant deltan(i) was chosen so that the quotient (deltaH(E)/deltan(i)) can be approximated as ( partial differentialH(E)/ partial differentialn(i)), and so that the scatter of the results is reasonable. deltaH(E) is the thermal response from an individual cell on titration, and we measure directly the difference in the thermal response between the two cells, Delta(deltaH(E)). The resulting quotient, Delta(deltaH(E))/deltan(i)/Deltax(i), can be approximated as ( partial differential(2)H(E)/ partial differentialn(i) partial differentialx(i)) and hence provides a direct experimental avenue for the enthalpy interaction function. We varied the value of Deltax(i) to seek its appropriate size. Since H(E) contains the first derivative of G with respect to T, the result is the third derivative quantity. Thus we present here a third derivative quantity directly determined experimentally for the first time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".