MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1930324826 · doi:10.1139/v11-145

Surface etching of silicone elastomers by depolymerization

2011· article· en· W1930324826 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Michael A. Brook, Shigui Zhao, Lihua Liu, Yang Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting Materials
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepolymerizationSiliconeElastomerCatalysisSurface roughnessChemistrySurface finishComposite materialChemical engineeringSilicone rubberEtching (microfabrication)SolventPolymer chemistryMaterials scienceLayer (electronics)Organic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Silicone elastomer surfaces that are rough at the nanometer to micron scales could be useful for biomaterials, but there are few efficient routes for their preparation. Silicones undergo depolymerization under equilibrating conditions. We demonstrate that surface roughness can be induced by depolymerizing silicone elastomers using triflic acid, tetrabutylammonium fluoride or KOH as catalysts. The efficiency of depolymerization, however, is decoupled from the roughness that develops. When the catalysts are dissolved in solvents that do not effectively swell silicones, the etching reaction can be mostly directed to the elastomer surface. Acid catalysis leads to slow, nearly homogenous surface erosion with surface roughnesses only increasing from 15 to about 125 nm root mean squared roughness. By contrast, once KOH partitions into the elastomer, the rate of erosion is more efficient than return of the catalyst to the solvent, leading to deep channels and roughnesses of up to ∼850 nm. The use of fluoride requires good solvents for silicone, and leads to surfaces of intermediate roughness. Thus, judicious choice of catalyst and solvent permits independent control over depolymerization and the induction of surface roughness.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations37
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicAdvanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting MaterialsFrench-language works237,207