MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806344973 · doi:10.1063/1.5024009

NaCl nucleation from brine in seeded simulations: Sources of uncertainty in rate estimates

2018· article· en· W2806344973 on OpenAlexaff
Nils Zimmermann, Bart Vorselaars, Jorge R. Espinosa, David Quigley, William R. Smith, Eduardo Sanz, Carlos Vega, Baron Peters

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersBasic Energy SciencesOffice of ScienceMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilEli Lilly and CompanyU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsSupersaturationNucleationSeedingBrineWork (physics)Cluster analysisCluster (spacecraft)Statistical physicsLinear regressionThermodynamicsMathematicsMaterials scienceComputer scienceStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work reexamines seeded simulation results for NaCl nucleation from a supersaturated aqueous solution at 298.15 K and 1 bar pressure. We present a linear regression approach for analyzing seeded simulation data that provides both nucleation rates and uncertainty estimates. Our results show that rates obtained from seeded simulations rely critically on a precise driving force for the model system. The driving force vs. solute concentration curve need not exactly reproduce that of the real system, but it should accurately describe the thermodynamic properties of the model system. We also show that rate estimates depend strongly on the nucleus size metric. We show that the rate estimates systematically increase as more stringent local order parameters are used to count members of a cluster and provide tentative suggestions for appropriate clustering criteria.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 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

Citations81
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical StudiesFrench-language works237,207