MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014795655 · doi:10.1039/c9an02141h

X-ray diffraction to probe the kinetics of ice recrystallization inhibition

2020· article· en· W3014795655 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alice E. R. Fayter, Steven Huband, Matthew I. Gibson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Analyst · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicnanoparticles nucleation surface interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignQueen's UniversityUniversity of WarwickRoyal Society
KeywordsRecrystallization (geology)DiffractionKineticsMaterials scienceCrystallographyX-ray crystallographyOpticsChemistryGeologyPhysicsPetrologyClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the nucleation and growth of ice is crucial in fields ranging from infrastructure maintenance, to the environment, and to preserving biologics in the cold chain. Ice binding and antifreeze proteins are potent ice recrystallization inhibitors (IRI), and synthetic materials that mimic this function have emerged, which may find use in biotechnology. To evaluate IRI activity, optical microscopy tools are typically used to monitor ice grain size either by end-point measurements or as a function of time. However, these methods provide 2-dimensional information and image analysis is required to extract the data. Here we explore using wide angle X-ray scattering (WAXS/X-ray powder diffraction (XRD)) to interrogate 100's of ice crystals in 3-dimensions as a function of time. Due to the random organization of the ice crystals in the frozen sample, the number of orientations measured by XRD is proportional to the number of ice crystals, which can be measured as a function of time. This method was used to evaluate the activity for a panel of known IRI active compounds, and shows strong agreement with results obtained from cryo-microscopy, as well as being advantageous in that time-dependent ice growth is easily extracted. Diffraction analysis also confirmed, by comparing the obtained diffraction patterns of both ice binding and non-binding additives, that the observed hexagonal ice diffraction patterns obtained cannot be used to determine which crystal faces are being bound. This method may help in the discovery of new IRI active materials as well as enabling kinetic analysis of ice growth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AnalystSame topicnanoparticles nucleation surface interactionsFrench-language works237,207