CONTROLLED AGGREGATION OF POLYMER LATICES PART 2. MECHANISM AND HYDRODYNAMICS OF THE PROCESS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The possibility of obtaining narrowly dispersed particles through controlled aggregation of polymer latices has been investigated Concentrated polystyrene and poly(styrene-co-acrylic acid) latices were aggregated through the addition of tetradecyl tritnethyl ammonium bromide under stirring, A three-step mechanism for the aggregation process is proposed. This mechanism involves the formation of a 3-D network with a gel-like structure, formation of small, compact aggregates (termed primary aggregates) through the mechanical disruption of this network, and farther aggregation of the primary aggregates into larger structures, termed secondary aggregates. Experimental evidence in support of this mechanism is presented. The influence of stirring rate on the size and size distribution of secondary aggregates is discussed in conjunction with the mechanism proposed, The trends observed in the aggregation of these latices were explained through calculations of the fundamental forces involved in this process. The method under investigation has been effective in obtaining 5–15 µm particles with a narrow size distribution and a strong control on the average size.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it