Apparent molar volumes of isoprene and limonene in dense-phase CO2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Apparent molar volumes were calculated from measured density differences (δΔρ = 0.01 – 2.90 kg m −3 , depending on compressibility) for subsaturated isoprene and limonene in CO 2 from T = 298 – 313 K and p = 8 – 13 MPa and used to fit a fluctuation solution theory equation with RMSD values of 58.5 and 177.8 cm 3 mol −1 , respectively. Apparent molar volume minima at supercritical temperatures were correlated to a compressibility Widom line. Literature vapour-liquid-equilibrium and solubility data were compared to values calculated using fluctuation solution theory equations. The fluctuation solution theory fit to apparent molar volumes calculated literature bubble points (AARD = 0.0031 – 0.0371) and solubility data (AARD 0.6991). Krichevskii parameters for each solute were compared to literature for other similar solutes. Fluctuation solution theory was deemed a good model to calculate the properties of dilute terpenes in CO 2 , especially in the near-critical region. • Measured apparent molar volumes of isoprene and limonene in near critical CO 2 . • Volumetric date used to fit to fluctuating solution theory and compared to literature data. • A volumetric Widom transition was observed at supercritical temperatures. • Fluctuating solution theory accurately predicted VLE and solubility values. • Krichevskii parameters were calculated for each system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".