MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2509721277 · doi:10.1021/acs.jced.5b00251

Prediction and Experimental Measurement of Refractive Index in Ternary Hydrocarbon Mixtures

2015· article· en· W2509721277 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammed Yahya, M. Ziad Saghir

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical & Engineering Data · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicField-Flow Fractionation Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsRefractive indexRefractometerTernary operationRefractionWavelengthHydrocarbonMaterials scienceThermodynamicsOpticsAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryPhysicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The physical properties of hydrocarbon mixtures are of great importance in the field of science and technology. Knowing the refractive index of multicomponent liquid mixtures is essential in order to characterize these systems; however, there is a limited amount of experimental data regarding their optical properties. The present study provides precise experimental measurements of the refractive indices of three hydrocarbon compounds: 1,2,3,4-tetrahydronaphthalene (THN), isobutylbenzene (IBB), and dodecane ( n C 12 ). Sixty-three compositions (36 ternaries +27 binaries) were prepared and investigated along with their three pure components using a wide range of concentrations, temperatures and wavelengths. The refractive indices were measured using the multiwavelength Abbemat refractometer. The experimental data were then used to develop and validate new mathematical correlations which can be used to predict the refractive index of ternary mixtures as a function of concentration, temperature, and wavelength. There was a strong correlation between the experimental data and the predictive values with average residual values of ± 1.55·10 –3 . This study also investigated the relative validity of the experimental measurements of the refractive indices with theoretically estimated values using mixing rules and data from the literature. The experimental values were in substantial agreement with the predictive equation values with deviations of ± 2.50·10 –3 .

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 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

Citations25
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical & Engineering DataSame topicField-Flow Fractionation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207