MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2299659008 · doi:10.1116/1.4939679

Hydration forces at solid and fluid biointerfaces

2016· review· en· W2299659008 on OpenAlexaff
Buddha Ratna Shrestha, Xavier Banquy

Bibliographic record

VenueBiointerphases · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLipid Membrane Structure and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemical physicsLipid bilayerChemistryMoleculeNanotechnologySurface forces apparatusSolid surfaceAtomic force microscopyBilayerSurface forceMembraneMaterials scienceClassical mechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors review the different molecular mechanisms giving rise to the repulsive hydration force between biologically relevant surfaces such as lipid bilayers and bioceramics. As the authors will show, the hydration force manifests itself in very different and subtle ways depending on the substrates. Soft, mobile surfaces such as lipid bilayers tend to exhibit monotonic, decaying hydration force, originated from the entropic constriction of the lipid head groups. Solid surfaces, on the other hand, tend to exhibit a periodic oscillatory hydration force, originated from the surface induced polarization of water molecules. In this review, the authors will describe both subtle faces of this important interaction by first describing the early experiments performed on solid surfaces and their interpretation by recent simulation studies. Then, the authors will describe the hydration force between fluid interfaces such as bilayers and explain how experimentally researchers have unraveled the dominant role of the lipid head groups' conformation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiointerphasesSame topicLipid Membrane Structure and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207