Enthalpy of formation of ye’elimite and ternesite

Calcium sulfoaluminate clinkers containing ye’elimite (Ca4Al6O12(SO4)) and ternesite (Ca5(SiO4)2SO4) are being widely investigated as components of calcium sulfoaluminate cement clinkers. These may become low energy replacements for Portland cement. Conditional thermodynamic data for ye’elimite and ternesite (enthalpy of formation) have been determined experimentally using a combination of techniques: isothermal conduction calorimetry, X-ray powder diffraction and thermogravimetric analysis. The enthalpies of formation of ye’elimite and ternesite at 25 °C were determined to be − 8523 and − 5993 kJ mol−1, respectively

Observing many researchers using the same data and hypothesis reveals a hidden universe of uncertainty

This study explores how researchers’ analytical choices affect the reliability of scientific findings. Most discussions of reliability problems in science focus on systematic biases. We broaden the lens to emphasize the idiosyncrasy of conscious and unconscious decisions that researchers make during data analysis. We coordinated 161 researchers in 73 research teams and observed their research decisions as they used the same data to independently test the same prominent social science hypothesis: that greater immigration reduces support for social policies among the public. In this typical case of social science research, research teams reported both widely diverging numerical findings and substantive conclusions despite identical start conditions. Researchers’ expertise, prior beliefs, and expectations barely predict the wide variation in research outcomes. More than 95% of the total variance in numerical results remains unexplained even after qualitative coding of all identifiable decisions in each team’s workflow. This reveals a universe of uncertainty that remains hidden when considering a single study in isolation. The idiosyncratic nature of how researchers’ results and conclusions varied is a previously underappreciated explanation for why many scientific hypotheses remain contested. These results call for greater epistemic humility and clarity in reporting scientific findings