X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy of miscible poly(methyl methacrylate)/poly(styrene‐<i>co</i>‐acrylonitrile) and immiscible poly(methyl methacrylate)/polyacrylonitrile polymer surfaces metallized by nickel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A miscible blend of poly(methyl methacrylate) and poly(styrene‐co‐acrylonitrile) and an immiscible blend of poly(methyl methacrylate) and polyacrylonitrile were metallized by nickel, and their surfaces were analyzed by X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy. Before metallization, the heteroatom distribution at the polymer surface was very different in the miscible and immiscible blends. However, this distribution was modified during metallization, which was only possible via polymer‐bond breaking, leading to similar compositions at the two interfaces. Oxygen exhibited a better affinity with nickel than nitrogen, but nickel oxide and nickel nitride were both formed at the interface. Nickel nitride prevented the metal from diffusing into the substrate, playing the role of a barrier, thus driving the oxygen to the metal layer. Amorphous carbon was also detected at the interface as a new carbon species, but it did not have any significant influence on the changes induced in the distribution of heteroatoms at the polymer surfaces. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Polym Sci Part B: Polym Phys 42: 1408–1416, 2004
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".