Like likes like: counterion-mediated attraction in macroionic and colloidal interaction
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The colloidal and macroionic interaction is discussed within the mean-field approach. Bound pairs of latex particles are photographed at a low particle volume fraction of 10(-4). The effective pair-potential obtained therefrom has an attractive tail for highly charged samples, while no attraction is detected for a low-charge sample. This attraction also manifests itself in the reversible aggregation of polystyrene sulfonate or DNA double strands by multivalent counterions. It is furthermore found in intra-macroionic interaction, affecting the conformation of flexible macroions. The reason why the DLVO theory predicts only repulsion is discussed. The Fowler-Guggenheim-McQaurrie analysis of the Debye-Hückel theory indicates that electrostatic Helmholtz free energy F(el) is generally not equal to Gibbs free energy G(el). The difference (G(el)-F(el))/V (V: system volume) corresponds to the electrostatic osmotic pressure p(el), which increases with increasing charge number. This consideration hints that (G(el)-F(el)) might not be negligible for highly charged macroions and colloidal particles. On the other hand, the DLVO approach is based on the assumption of G(el) = F(el). Using a mean-field approach, Sogami showed that the pair-potential is purely repulsive at the level of F(el), in conformity with the DLVO theory, whereas it contains a short-range repulsion and a long-range attraction at the level of G(el). The prevailing view that the interparticle interaction is purely repulsive in the mean-field approach, is not necessarily correct: it originates from the assumption that G(el) = F(el). The DLVO theory is correct for low charge samples while the like-likes-like attraction appears for highly charged ones.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it