MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224264152 · doi:10.11159/icnnfc22.170

In Silico Characterization of Nanomaterials

2022· article· en· W4224264152 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anais Colibaba, Konstantinos Τ. Kotsis, Vladimir Lobaskin

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Recent Advances in Nanotechnology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanotechnology research and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharacterization (materials science)In silicoNanomaterialsComputer scienceNanotechnologyMaterials scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nanomaterials (NMs) and nanoparticles (NPs) lie at the core of many technological applications in medicine and pharmacology, as well as in the food, agriculture, electronics, and energy industries. They are also released in the environment through natural and incidental pathways. Despite our heavy reliance on NMs, the potential risk they pose to the environment and to the biological systems is still of major concern In this work, we evaluate intrinsic and extrinsic NM descriptors to aid in the prediction of biomolecular interactions at the surface of NMs and development of structure-activity relationships between their physicochemical characteristics and their toxicity Intrinsic properties are solely based on the molecular and electronic structure of the NM, while the extrinsic properties describe a NM that comes in contact with a protein in a solvent. The NM models for the calculation of intrinsic descriptors are associated with the core of the NM that is described as a periodic bulk material In this work, we present a database of calculated descriptors for several common NMs. The provided list contained various samples of NP (metals, oxides, minerals, polymers, and carbon-based compounds such as carbon nanotubes (CNTs) and graphene sheets) that were used in toxicological experiments.

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 score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Recent Advances in NanotechnologySame topicNanotechnology research and applicationsFrench-language works237,207