MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2596850459 · doi:10.1103/physreve.95.032607

Quantifying disorder in colloidal films spin-coated onto patterned substrates

2017· article· en· W2596850459 on OpenAlexafffund
Raheema Aslam, Sergio Ardanza-Trevijano, Kristin M. Poduska, Anand Yethiraj, Wenceslao González−Viñas

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhotonic Crystals and Applications
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAsociación de Amigos de la Universidad de NavarraUniversidad de NavarraMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadFederación Española de Enfermedades Raras
KeywordsMaterials scienceColloidSymmetry (geometry)CoatingSpin coatingCondensed matter physicsRange (aeronautics)Spin (aerodynamics)Colloidal crystalOrder and disorderColloidal particleChemical physicsNanotechnologyComposite materialPhysicsGeometryChemistryPhysical chemistryThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polycrystals of thin colloidal deposits, with thickness controlled by spin-coating speed, exhibit axial symmetry with local 4-fold and 6-fold symmetric structures, termed orientationally correlated polycrystals (OCPs). While spin-coating is a very facile technique for producing large-area colloidal deposits, the axial symmetry prevents us from achieving true long-range order. To obtain true long-range order, we break this axial symmetry by introducing a patterned surface topography and thus eliminate the OCP character. We then examine symmetry-independent methods to quantify order in these disordered colloidal deposits. We find that all the information in the bond-orientational order parameters is well captured by persistent homology analysis methods that only use the centers of the particles as input data. It is expected that these methods will prove useful in characterizing other disordered structures.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. ESame topicPhotonic Crystals and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207