MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7146313691

The complex viscosity of Möbius macromolecules

2020· article· en· W7146313691 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Piette Jourdain H., Moreno Nicolas, Fried Eliot, Giacomin Alan Jeffrey

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMaterial Dynamics and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaQueen's UniversityOkinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate UniversityCabinet Office, Government of JapanCanada Research ChairsGovernment of Canada
KeywordsMacromoleculeDimensionless quantityViscosityRheologyIntrinsic viscositySuspension (topology)Stress (linguistics)Relative viscosity
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using general rigid bead–rod theory, we explore the effect of twisting a macromolecule on its rheological properties in suspensions. We thus focus on macromolecules having the form of Möbius bands so that the number of twists can be incremented. We call these Möbius macromolecules. When represented in general rigid bead–rod theory, these macromolecules comprise beads whose centers all fall on a Möbius band. From first principles, we calculate the complex viscosity of twisted rings with zero to seven twists. We find that the zero-shear values of the viscosity and first normal stress coefficient increase with twisting. Furthermore, we find that the real part of the complex viscosity descends more rapidly, with frequency, with extent of twist. For the imaginary part of the complex viscosity, the more twisted, the higher the peak. For each part of the dimensionless complex viscosity and the first normal stress coefficient, the results fall on one of just three curves corresponding to zero, even, or odd numbers of twists. We also explore the effects of the length and the aspect ratio of twisted macromolecular suspensions. We close with a worked example for a suspension of triply twisted Möbius annulene.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB)Same topicMaterial Dynamics and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207