MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318282180 · doi:10.1021/je400178k

Molar Heat Capacity (<i>C</i><sub><i>p</i></sub>) of Aqueous Cyclic Amine Solutions from (298.15 to 353.15) K

2013· article· en· W2318282180 on OpenAlexaff
Saeed Poozesh, Aravind V. Rayer, Amr Henni

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical & Engineering Data · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCarbon Dioxide Capture Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPiperazineMolarHeat capacityMorpholineChemistryMole fractionAqueous solutionAmine gas treatingApparent molar propertyMolar concentrationMolar ratioPartial molar propertyThermodynamicsPhysical chemistryOrganic chemistryCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Molar heat capacities at 11 different temperatures in the range (298.15 to 353.15) K are reported for aqueous 1,4-dimethyl piperazine (1,4-DMPZ), 1-(2-hydroxyethyl) piperazine (1,2-HEPZ), 1-methyl piperazine (1-MPZ), 3-morpholinopropyl amine (3-MOPA), and 4-(2-hydroxyethyl) morpholine (4,2-HEMO) solutions. Molar heat capacities of MDEA and MEA were also measured and compared with published data resulting in a 1 % experimental uncertainty. Molar excess heat capacities were correlated as a function of mole fraction and temperature employing the Redlich–Kister relation. Excess partial molar quantities were calculated and reported. Group additivity analysis was performed using the molar heat capacities for all the above cyclic amines, and data were fitted with less than 0.5 AAD%. Among the five amines studied, 3-MOPA had the highest values of molar heat capacity and 1-MPZ had the lowest. The values of molar heat capacity of amines were dominated by −CH 2 and −OH group contributions. The contributions of −CH 2, −N, −OH, −O, and −NH 2 groups increased with increasing temperature, and the contributions of −NH and −CH 3 groups decreased with increasing temperature for these cyclic amines.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.176 · 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.

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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical & Engineering DataSame topicCarbon Dioxide Capture TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207