Do Fluorocarbon, Hydrocarbon, and Polycyclic Aromatic Groups Intermingle? A Study of the Interactions in Water between Fluorocarbon- and Hydrocarbon-Modified Poly(<i>N</i>-isopropylacrylamides)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fluorescence spectroscopy and isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC) have been used to study the intermixing in water of fluorescently labeled poly( N -isopropylacrylamides) grafted at random with low levels of either fluorocarbon or hydrocarbon chains. In aqueous solution, the copolymers form micellar structures consisting of a loose corona of hydrated poly( N -isopropylacrylamide) chains and a hydrophobic core rich in hydrocarbon or fluorocarbon groups. From fluorescence experiments using nonradiative energy transfer between excited naphthalene and pyrene and from changes in the ratio of pyrene excimer to monomer emission intensity, it has been established that polymeric chains exchange among micelles of hydrocarbon-modified polymers, but not among hydrocarbon- and fluorocarbon-modified polymers. Hydrocarbon- or fluorocarbon-modified polymers were also added to solutions of a copolymer carrying both hydrocarbon and fluorocarbon chains, which in water forms assemblies where the fluorocarbon and hydrocarbon groups segregate into distinct nanodomains within a hydrophobic core. Evidence of fluorescence spectroscopy indicated that intermixing of hydrocarbon-modified polymers with bis(fluorocarbon/hydrocarbon)-poly-( N -isopropylacrylamide) perturbs the hydrocarbon-rich nanodomains but not the fluorocarbon-rich ones. The conclusions were corroborated by ITC experiments, which in addition provided strong evidence that intermixing takes place among fluorocarbon-modified poly( N -isopropylacrylamides).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".