MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320186801 · doi:10.1021/mz4006217

When Does a Glass Transition Temperature Not Signify a Glass Transition?

2014· article· en· W2320186801 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Macro Letters · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMaterial Dynamics and Properties
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlass transitionMaterials scienceTransition (genetics)Composite materialPolymerChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a simple model that links enhanced mobility at the free surface to the dilatometric glass transition temperature, T g in thin films. The model shows that what is typically measured as a dilatometric T g, characterized by the hallmark “kink” in the plot of film thickness versus temperature, only represents the dynamics of an infinitesimally thin layer of the sample. In other words, the measured dilatometric T g value in thin films is no longer a good reporter of the dynamics. Calculations based on the model are found to agree with a vast body of thin film T g measurements. While mathematically simple, the model contains all the necessary physics of a near surface layer with enhanced dynamics and a length scale over which the surface dynamics monotonically varies from surface enhanced to bulk-like. The model demonstrates that the typical dilatometric measurement of the glass transition is not necessarily a real glass 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.

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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.191 · 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