MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985160415 · doi:10.1002/app.32252

The effect of ligand molecular weight on copper salt catalyzed oxidative coupling polymerization of 2,6‐dimethylphenol

2010· article· en· W1985160415 on OpenAlexaff
Ying Zhao, Linbo Wu, Bo‐Geng Li, Shiping Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Polymer Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Polymer Synthesis and Characterization
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopolymerPolymer chemistryChemistryPolymerizationCatalysisSelectivityChain transferCopperLigand (biochemistry)Oxidative coupling of methaneOrganic chemistryRadical polymerizationPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Polyphenylene oxide (PPO) was prepared via oxidative coupling polymerization of 2,6‐dimethylphenol (DMP) catalyzed by copper salt. The ligand was a novel series of random copolymers (PSVP) of styrene and 4‐vinylpyridine prepared by reversible addition‐fragmentation chain transfer (RAFT) copolymerization. The copolymers with well‐controlled molecular weight (MW) were used to study the effects of ligand molecular weight on the catalytic activity and selectivity. It was found that the catalytic activity increased with the molecular weight but there existed an upper MW limit above which no further increase in activity could be achieved. With PSVP of F vPy = 0.39, the critical MW was about 5000 g/mol. The mechanism involved in the successive complexation of copper ions and PSVP was elucidated and the equilibrium constants were estimated by pH titration. It was found that the macromolecular ligand was in favor of bridging Cu II ions that formed catalytically active dinuclear copper‐amine complexes. However, the catalytic selectivity was almost independent of the ligand MW. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2010

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)0.001
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Polymer ScienceSame topicAdvanced Polymer Synthesis and CharacterizationFrench-language works237,207