MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991405254 · doi:10.1002/pola.10108

Formation of pore‐filled microfiltration membranes using a combination of modified interfacial polymerization and grafting

2001· article· en· W1991405254 on OpenAlexaff
Ronald F. Childs, Weng Junfan, Marcus Kim, James M. Dickson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Polymer Science Part A Polymer Chemistry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMembrane Separation Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMembranePolymer chemistryPolyethylenimineInterfacial polymerizationCoatingChemical engineeringStyreneMaterials scienceGraftingMicrofiltrationPolymerizationChemistryPolymerCopolymerComposite materialMonomer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A novel method of fabricating pore‐filled membranes has been developed by coating a hydrophobic polyolefinic microfiltration membrane with polyethylenimine (PEI) to produce a chemically active surface. An evaporative coating technique was used to coat the internal surface of a polyolefinic membrane with PEI in chloroform (CHCl 3 ). The coated PEI was then crosslinked by naphthalene‐1,4‐disulfonyl chloride in carbon tetrachloride (CCl 4 ). The incorporation of the PEI coating changed the properties of the base membrane from hydrophobic to relatively hydrophilic; the nitrogens could be titrated, and the coating could not be washed out. 4,4′‐Azo‐bis(4‐cyanovaleryl chloride), a heat‐sensitive radical source, was incorporated into the coated membrane. The coated membrane, with incorporated azo compound, was heated to 75 °C in the presence of acrylic acid, 4‐(vinylpyridine), or styrene to give the corresponding grafted, pore‐filled membranes. The membranes exhibited hydraulic fluxes and pH valve effects consistent with molecular brushes grafted within the pores of the membranes. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Polym Sci Part A: Polym Chem 40: 242–250, 2002

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations22
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Polymer Science Part A Polymer ChemistrySame topicMembrane Separation TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207