Refractive Index Measured at 589 nm from 283.15 to 358.15 K to Evaluate Temperature Invariance of Berthelot, Gladstone–Dale, Lorentz–Lorenz, and Eykman Equations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Molar refractivity is temperature independent, and its relationship to molar volume is described by a refractive index function. Four refractive index functions describing the relationships between molar refractivity, refractive index, and molar volume were evaluated: Berthelot, Gladstone–Dale, Lorentz–Lorenz, and Eykman. Experimental measurements of refractive index ( n, 0.000001 readability) and density (ρ, 0.001 kg·m –3 readability) were obtained for pure compounds at five temperatures, from 283.15 to 358.15 K at atmospheric pressure, with nine replicates per temperature condition. In total, 72 compounds from the n -alkanes, 1-alkenes, 1-alkynes, cyclic compounds, alkyl aromatics, 1-alcohols, carboxylic acids, and those containing sulfur were included in the study. Using the experimental data as input, the variation in molar refractivity with temperature was calculated using each of the four refractive index functions. It was found that the Eykman refractive index function, ( n 2 −1)/( n + 0.4), resulted in the lowest temperature-dependent variation in molar refractivity. The rank order of performance of the refractive index functions was consistent for all groups of compounds, with Eykman being the best (0.03% relative variability in molar refractivity with temperature), followed by Gladstone–Dale, Lorentz–Lorenz, and Berthelot.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".