Probing Hydrogen Bonding and Proton Mobility in Dicyanoimidazole Monomers and Polymers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrogen bonding and proton mobility are important features in many polymers. In this work, hydrogen bonding is studied in both monomers and polymers of dicyanoimidazoles using infrared and solid-state NMR spectroscopy and polymer viscosity studies. Hydrogen bonding accounts for an unusual complexity in the nitrogen−hydrogen stretching region of the infrared spectra. The influence of hydrogen bonding on properties was observed in several dicyanoimidazole polymers through polymer viscosity studies and estimation of Mark−Houwink parameters. The Mark−Houwink a value decreases, representing a less stiff chain, in poly(1-methyl-2-vinyl-4,5-dicyanoimidazole) compared to poly(2-vinyl-4,5-dicyanoimidazole) because hydrogen bonding is eliminated. By dissolving poly(2-vinyl-4,5-dicyanoimidazole) in NH 3 (aq), a polymer electrolyte results. Although hydrogen bonding is eliminated, electronic repulsions contribute to an increase in a or chain stiffness. Proton mobility in dicyanoimidazole polymers was studied with an innovative solid-state NMR technique using double-quantum (DQ) filtering and fast magic angle spinning (MAS = 30 kHz). Using this approach, several types of hydrogen bonds were identified and proton mobility in poly(2-vinyl-4,5-dicyanoimidazole) was detected.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".