MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385210208 · doi:10.1088/1751-8121/acea08

The escape transition in a self-avoiding walk model of linear polymers

2023· article· en· W4385210208 on OpenAlexafffund
E J Janse van Rensburg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSelf-avoiding walkPhase transitionLattice (music)Random walkStatistical physicsPolymerThermodynamic limitMonte Carlo methodLinear polymerTransition pointSquare latticePhysicsMaterials scienceCondensed matter physicsThermodynamicsMathematicsIsing model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A linear polymer grafted to a hard wall and underneath an atomic force microscopy tip can be modeled in a lattice as a grafted lattice polymer (self-avoiding walk) compressed underneath a piston near the wall. As the piston approaches the wall the increasingly confined polymer escapes from the confined region to explore conformations beside the piston. This conformational change is believed to be a phase transition in the thermodynamic limit, and has been argued to be first order, based on numerical results in the literature. In this paper a lattice self-avoiding walk model of the escape transition is constructed. It is proven that this model has a critical point in the thermodynamic limit corresponding to the escape transition of compressed grafted linear polymers. This result relies on the analysis of self-avoiding walks in slits and slabs in the square and cubic lattices. Additionally, numerical estimates of the location of the escape transition critical point is reported based on Monte Carlo simulations of self-avoiding walks in slits and in slabs.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalSame topicForce Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207