MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2292797158 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22454

Polarized light‐based scheme to correlate Mueller matrix elements and casein foam properties

2016· article· en· W2292797158 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shaoyu Qian, John J. J. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPickering emulsions and particle stabilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBubbleFraction (chemistry)Materials scienceMatrix (chemical analysis)Light scatteringCaseinMass fractionDynamic light scatteringMueller calculusChromatographyScatteringComposite materialChemistryMechanicsPhysicsNanotechnologyOpticsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experimental measurements were made on the scattering of polarized light to determine all six independent elements of the Mueller matrix for three types of casein foams with different bubble size distributions. These elements were correlated with the liquid fraction and the bubble size distribution which were measured independently during free foam drainage by multiple linear regression analysis. A correlation between M11 and M22 and the liquid fraction and the bubble size distribution with a high correlation coefficient has been obtained. M12 shows dependence only on the bubble size distribution but not on the liquid fraction. M33 is associated with both parameters. For initially monodispersed casein foams, M34 is almost independent of the liquid fraction and the bubble size distribution, whereas M44 is significantly correlated with the mean bubble diameter. For the bidispersed casein foam, both M34 and M44 are mainly associated with the liquid fraction.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicPickering emulsions and particle stabilizationFrench-language works237,207