MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313790116 · doi:10.1021/jp305064x

Proton NMR Relaxation Study on the Nematic–Nematic Phase Transition in A131 Liquid Crystal

2012· article· en· W2313790116 on OpenAlexaff
Alina Aluculesei, Fabián Vaca Chávez, C. Cruz, Pedro J. Sebastião, N. Nagaveni, Veena Prasad, Ronald Y. Dong

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry B · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLiquid Crystal Research Advancements
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiquid crystalRelaxation (psychology)Larmor precessionCondensed matter physicsPhase transitionDispersion (optics)Materials scienceProtonPhase (matter)London dispersion forceNuclear magnetic resonanceSpin–lattice relaxationCrystallographyChemistryMoleculeMagnetic fieldOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study of the proton NMR spin-lattice relaxation time, T(1), of the A131 liquid crystal compound as a function of temperature and Larmor frequency, using a combination of fast field-cycling and standard NMR techniques, is presented. The frequency dispersion in a wide range (from 10 kHz to 300 MHz) at different temperatures and the temperature variation of T(1), in several frequency conditions, were analyzed considering the contributions of the molecular movements generally detected in liquid crystals. In the case of nematic phases of calamitic liquid crystals, the nuclear spin relaxation is dominated by collective movements and local molecular reorientations. The experimental results clearly show a transition within the nematic range of this compound, previously identified as one from the uniaxial to the biaxial phase. This transition can be associated with a slowing down of the molecular rotations around the long molecular axis, where the preferred orientation defines the principal director as detected in the T(1) dispersion analysis.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry BSame topicLiquid Crystal Research AdvancementsFrench-language works237,207