Morphology of Poly(2-ethylhexyl methacrylate):Poly(butyl methacrylate) Latex Blend Films
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the morphology of the latex films formed from a mixture of two different latex particles: poly(butyl methacrylate) (PBMA, 120 nm) and poly(2-ethylhexyl methacrylate) (PEHMA, 100 nm). Twenty percent of the PBMA phase is labeled with 1 mol % anthracene. Using confocal fluorescence microscopy, we obtained images of the internal morphology of the dry films. Atomic force microscopy was used to image the surfaces of the films. For the same blend composition, 10 wt % PBMA and 90 wt % PEHMA, we studied the effect of two factors on the blend morphology: the presence or the absence of the surfactant SDS (ca. 2 wt % of the weight of polymers) in the dispersion and the dispersion concentration. We related the different morphologies we observed to the differences in the drying mechanisms. In the case of a surfactant-free film cast from a 5 wt % dispersion mixture, the film dried homogeneously, and we observed uniform distribution of the PBMA dispersed phase in the PEHMA matrix. In the presence of surfactant, the film dries laterally with a propagating drying front, and we observed network-like structures formed by PBMA particles in a matrix of PEHMA. The segregation of PBMA and PEHMA particles can be explained by differences in the surfactant adsorption onto PBMA and PEHMA particles.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 it