MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Continuous Addition Kinetic Elucidation: Catalyst and Reactant Order, Rate Constant, and Poisoning from a Single Experiment

2022· preprint· en· W4282556431 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter J. H. Williams, Charles Killeen, Ian C. Chagunda, Brett Henderson, Sofia Donnecke, Wil Munro, Jaspreet Sidhu, Denaisha Kraft, David A. Harrington, J. Scott McIndoe

Bibliographic record

VenueChemRxiv · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical Chemistry and Chromatography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsCatalysisReaction rate constantKinetic energyOrder of reactionChemistryConstant (computer programming)Reaction rateOrder (exchange)ThermodynamicsFirst orderKineticsChemical engineeringComputational chemistryMaterials scienceOrganic chemistryComputer sciencePhysicsMathematicsEngineeringApplied mathematicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kinetic analysis of catalytic reactions is a powerful tool for mechanistic elucidation but is often challenging to perform. Establishing order in a catalyst is achieved by running several reactions at different loadings, which is complicated by the challenge of maintaining consistent run-to-run experimental conditions. We present Continuous Addition Kinetic Elucidation (CAKE), which involves steadily injecting catalyst into the reaction, and following reaction progress over time to generate a plot whose shape is dependent only on the order in reactant and in catalyst. Modelling the curve (using a convenient web tool) allows the catalyst and reactant order to be determined, as well as the rate constant and the amount of any catalyst poison present.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemRxivSame topicAnalytical Chemistry and ChromatographyFrench-language works237,207