MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411491568 · doi:10.1021/acs.jced.5c00165

Phase Equilibria of the Tetrabutylammonium Lactate (TBAL) Semiclathrate in the Presence of the Trehalose Disaccharide

2025· article· en· W4411491568 on OpenAlexafffund
Iwan Townson, Peter Englezos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical & Engineering Data · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical Chemistry and Chromatography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsChemistryDisaccharideTrehaloseOrganic chemistryInorganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tetrabutylammonium lactate (TBAL) semiclathrate is known to have a maximum dissociation temperature near 12 °C and multiple polymorph formation. In this work, the phase equilibria and polymorph formation of the TBAL semiclathrate in the presence of a disaccharide, trehalose, are investigated using differential scanning calorimetry. A 3:1 mass ratio of TBAL:trehalose was shown to form 3 polymorphs, labeled A, B, and C, that formed sometimes stochastically between water concentrations but showed a general trend similar to the TBAL and water system, where polymorph A/B formed with lower dissociation temperatures and polymorph C having the highest dissociation temperature. The maximum dissociation temperature was depressed to 10.3 °C with approximately 11.5% (w/w) trehalose compared to 11.9 °C in a TBAL and water system only. A glass transition event may have occurred at −28 °C for the mass ratio of 3:1 TBAL:trehalose independent of water concentration at a cooling rate of 1 °C min –1 and a warming rate of 0.5 °C min –1 . When the cooling and warming rates were increased to 10 and 15 °C min –1, respectively, a possible glass transition occurred at around −17 °C. However, large exotherms, indicative of semiclathrate recrystallization, were observed.

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)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical & Engineering DataSame topicAnalytical Chemistry and ChromatographyFrench-language works237,207