MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976430333 · doi:10.1002/macp.200390107

Critically Evaluated Rate Coefficients for Free‐Radical Polymerization, 4

2003· article· en· W1976430333 on OpenAlexaff
Sabine Beuermann, Michael Buback, Thomas P. Davis, Nuria García, Robert G. Gilbert, Robin A. Hutchinson, Atsushi Kajiwara, Mikiharu Kamachi, Igor Lacı́k, Gregory T. Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueMacromolecular Chemistry and Physics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Polymer Synthesis and Characterization
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolymerizationMonomerArrhenius equationCrystallographyChemistryGlycidyl methacrylateAnalytical Chemistry (journal)CombinatoricsPolymerPhysicsPhysical chemistryMathematicsActivation energyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Propagation rate coefficients, kp, which have been previously reported by several groups for free‐radical bulk polymerizations of cyclohexyl methacrylate (CHMA), glycidyl methacrylate (GMA), benzyl methacrylate (BzMA), and isobornyl methacrylate (iBoMA) are critically evaluated. All data were determined by the combination of pulsed‐laser polymerization (PLP) and subsequent polymer analysis by size‐exclusion chromatography (SEC). This so‐called PLP‐SEC technique has been recommended as the method of choice for the determination of kp by the IUPAC Working Party on Modeling of Polymerisation Kinetics and Processes. The present data fulfill consistency criteria and the agreement among the data from different laboratories is remarkable. The values for CHMA, GMA, and BzMA are therefore recommended as constituting benchmark data sets for each monomer. The data for iBoMA are also considered reliable, but since SEC calibration was established only by a single group, the data are not considered as a benchmark data set. All kp data for each monomer are best fitted by the following Arrhenius relations: CHMA: $k_{\rm p} = 10^{6.80} \;{\rm L} \cdot {\rm mol}^{ - 1} \cdot {\rm s}^{ - 1} \exp \left( {{{ - 23.0\;{\rm kJ} \cdot {\rm mol}^{ - 1} } \over {{\rm R} \cdot T}}} \right)$ , GMA: $k_{\rm p} = 10^{6.79} \;{\rm L} \cdot {\rm mol}^{ - 1} \cdot {\rm s}^{ - 1} \exp \left( {{{ - 22.9\;{\rm kJ} \cdot {\rm mol}^{ - 1} } \over {{\rm R} \cdot T}}} \right)$ , BzMA: $k_{\rm p} = 10^{6.83} \;{\rm L} \cdot {\rm mol}^{ - 1} \cdot {\rm s}^{ - 1} \exp \left( {{{ - 22.9\;{\rm kJ} \cdot {\rm mol}^{ - 1} } \over {{\rm R} \cdot T}}} \right)$ , iBoMA: $k_{\rm p} = 10^{6.79} \;{\rm L} \cdot {\rm mol}^{ - 1} \cdot {\rm s}^{ - 1} \exp \left( {{{ - 23.1\;{\rm kJ} \cdot {\rm mol}^{ - 1} } \over {{\rm R} \cdot T}}} \right)$ . Rather remarkably, for the methacrylates under investigation, the kp values are all very similar. Thus, all data can be fitted well by a single Arrhenius relation resulting in a pre‐exponential factor of 4.24 × 106 L · mol−1 · s−1 and an activation energy of 21.9 kJ · mol−1. All activation parameters refer to bulk polymerizations at ambient pressure and temperatures below 100 °C. Joint confidence intervals are also provided, enabling values and uncertainties for kp to be estimated at any temperature. 95% joint confidence intervals for Arrhenius parameters A and EA for cyclohexyl (CHMA), glycidyl (GMA), benzyl (BzMA), and isobornyl (iBoMA) methacrylate; for details see text. magnified image 95% joint confidence intervals for Arrhenius parameters A and EA for cyclohexyl (CHMA), glycidyl (GMA), benzyl (BzMA), and isobornyl (iBoMA) methacrylate; for details see text.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations141
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacromolecular Chemistry and PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Polymer Synthesis and CharacterizationFrench-language works237,207