Free Energy of a Folded Polymer under Cylindrical Confinement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monte Carlo computer simulations are used to study the conformational free energy of a folded polymer confined to a long cylindrical tube. The polymer is modeled as a hard-sphere chain. Its conformational free energy F is measured as a function of λ, the end-to-end distance of the polymer. In the case of a flexible linear polymer, F (λ) is a linear function in the folded regime with a gradient that scales as f ≡ |d F /dλ| ∼ N 0 D –1.20±0.01 for a tube of diameter D and a polymer of length N . This is close to the prediction f ∼ N 0 D –1 obtained from simple scaling arguments. The discrepancy is due in part to finite-size effects associated with the de Gennes blob model. A similar discrepancy was observed for the folding of a single arm of a three-arm star polymer. We also examine backfolding of a semiflexible polymer of persistence length P in the classic Odijk regime. In the overlap regime, the derivative scales f ∼ N 0 D –1.72±0.02 P –0.35±0.01, which is close to the prediction f ∼ N 0 D –5/3 P –1/3 obtained from a scaling argument that treats interactions between deflection segments at the second virial level. In addition, the measured free energy cost of forming a hairpin turn is quantitatively consistent with a recent theoretical calculation. Finally, we examine the scaling of F (λ) for a confined semiflexible chain in the presence of an S-loop composed of two hairpins. While the predicted scaling of the free energy gradient is the same as that for a single hairpin, we observe a scaling of f ∼ D –1.91±0.03 P –0.36±0.01 . Thus, the quantitative discrepancy between this measurement and the predicted scaling is somewhat greater for S-loops than for single hairpins.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".