The expected time to attain chemical equilibrium from a thermodynamic probabilistic analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Employing a stochastic model, both Planck and Fokker proposed almost a century ago that stoichiometric chemical reactions proceed by a chain mechanism involving discrete reaction steps. To determine whether such a chain mechanism was in fact a valid mechanism for chemical reactions was the subject of a recent study (Garfinkle, M. 2002. J. Phys. Chem. 106A: 490). Using a thermodynamic–probabilistic algorithm the stochastic reaction paths were found to be in excellent agreement with the observed reaction paths plotted from experimental data. This study was then extended to test the conclusions of Ehrenfest and Prigogine that a chain mechanism dictates that the number of discrete reaction steps required for a chemical reaction to attain equilibrium must be finite. The stochastic and empirical reaction paths were compared using experimental data for first-, second-, and third-order reactions as well as fractional order reactions. The empirical verification was excellent.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".