MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2816791157 · doi:10.1021/acs.langmuir.8b01276

Protein–Water–Ice Contact Angle

2018· article· en· W2816791157 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueLangmuir · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicnanoparticles nucleation surface interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilIsrael Science FoundationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionGovernment of CanadaNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsContact angleIce waterYield (engineering)Nanoscopic scaleChemistryThermodynamicsMaterials sciencePhysicsNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The protein-water-ice contact angle is a controlling parameter in diverse fields. Here we show that data from three different experiments, at three different length scales, with three different proteins, in three different laboratories yield a consistent value for the protein-water-ice contact angle (88.0 ± 1.3°) when analyzed using the Gibbs-Thomson equation. The measurements reinforce the validity of each other, and the fact that similar values are obtained across diverse length scales, experiments, and proteins yields insight into protein-water interactions and the applicability of thermodynamics at the nanoscale.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

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)0.0150.016

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.215 · 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