MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966567340 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1822092116

The entropic bond in colloidal crystals

2019· article· en· W2966567340 on OpenAlexaff
Eric S. Harper, Greg van Anders, Sharon C. Glotzer

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCephalopods and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersDivision of Materials ResearchUniversity of MichiganSimons FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsChemical bondBondChemical physicsStatistical physicsEntropy (arrow of time)ColloidNanotechnologyNanoscopic scaleMaterials scienceThermodynamicsChemistryPhysicsPhysical chemistryQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A vast array of natural phenomena can be understood through the long-established schema of chemical bonding. Conventional chemical bonds arise through local gradients resulting from the rearrangement of electrons; however, it is possible that the hallmark features of chemical bonding could arise through local gradients resulting from nonelectronic forms of mediation. If other forms of mediation give rise to "bonds" that act like conventional ones, recognizing them as bonds could open new forms of supramolecular descriptions of phenomena at the nano- and microscales. Here, we show via a minimal model that crowded hard-particle systems governed solely by entropy exhibit the hallmark features of bonding despite the absence of chemical interactions. We quantitatively characterize these features and compare them to those exhibited by chemical bonds to argue for the existence of entropic bonds. As an example of the utility of the entropic bond classification, we demonstrate the nearly equivalent tradeoff between chemical bonds and entropic bonds in the colloidal crystallization of hard hexagonal nanoplates.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations59
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicCephalopods and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207