MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131784932 · doi:10.1063/1.2388270

Discontinuous molecular dynamics simulation study of polymer collapse

2006· article· en· W2131784932 on OpenAlexafffund
Sheldon B. Opps, James M. Polson, Nick Abou Risk

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMaterial Dynamics and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersNational Research Council CanadaWestern Canada Research Grid
KeywordsMonomerMolecular dynamicsPolymerScalingSolventThermodynamicsChemical physicsPhase transitionMaterials sciencePhase (matter)Phase diagramStatistical physicsChemistryComputational chemistryPhysicsOrganic chemistryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Discontinuous molecular dynamics simulations were used to study the coil-globule transition of a polymer in an explicit solvent. Two different versions of the model were employed, which are differentiated by the nature of monomer-solvent, solvent-solvent, and nonbonded monomer-monomer interactions. For each case, a model parameter lambda determines the degree of hydrophobicity of the monomers by controlling the degree of energy mismatch between the monomers and solvent particles. We consider a lambda-driven coil-globule transition at constant temperature. The simulations are used to calculate average static structure factors, which are then used to determine the scaling exponents of the system in order to determine the theta-point values lambda(theta) separating the coil from the globule state. For each model we construct coil-globule phase diagrams in terms of lambda and the particle density rho. Additionally, we explore for each model the effects of varying the range of the attractive interactions on the phase boundary separating the coil and globule phases. The results are analyzed in terms of a simple Flory-type theory of the collapse transition.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations14
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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