MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921854393 · doi:10.1063/1.5091511

Reference Correlations for the Viscosity of 13 Inorganic Molten Salts

2019· article· en· W2921854393 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicMolten salt chemistry and electrochemical processes
Canadian institutionsC-Therm Technologies (Canada)University of Fredericton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryViscosityMolten saltThermodynamicsConductivityInorganic chemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)MineralogyPhysical chemistryChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1988, reference correlations for the viscosity of a selection of molten inorganic salts were proposed by Janz and have been used extensively. During the last 31 years, many additional measurements have been published. In a very recent paper, new reference correlations for the thermal conductivity of 13 inorganic molten salts were proposed. In this paper, reference correlations for the viscosity of those same salts are proposed. All available experimental data for the viscosity of 13 inorganic molten salts have been critically examined with the intention of establishing improved or new reference viscosity correlations. All experimental data have been categorized into primary and secondary data according to the quality of measurement specified by a series of criteria. Standard reference correlations are proposed for the following molten salts (with estimated uncertainties at the 95% confidence level given in parentheses): LiNO3 (6.7%), NaNO3 (3.0%), KNO3 (3.0%), NaBr (1.6%), KBr (2.0%), RbBr (2.2%), LiCl (3.7%), NaCl (2.4%), KCl (1.6%), RbCl (3.6%), CsCl (1.1%), NaI (1.5%), and RbI (1.5%).

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)0.001
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.247 · 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