MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008330299 · doi:10.1021/ma200449e

Synthesis and Thermal Properties of Linear Amphiphilic Diblock Copolymers of <scp>l</scp>-Lactide and 2-Dimethylaminoethyl Methacrylate

2011· article· en· W2008330299 on OpenAlexaff
M. A. Kryuchkov, Christophe Detrembleur, Robert Jérôme, Robert E. Prud’homme, C. Géraldine Bazuin

Bibliographic record

VenueMacromolecules · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
Topicbiodegradable polymer synthesis and properties
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolymer chemistryCopolymerDispersityAtom-transfer radical-polymerizationMethacrylateMaterials scienceCrystallinityPolymerizationCrystallizationMolar mass distributionChemical engineeringPolymerChemistryOrganic chemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A well-defined series of nine poly( l -lactide)- b -(2-dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate) (PLLA- b -PDMAEMA) linear diblock copolymers with low polydispersity were prepared by ring-opening polymerization of LLA using 4-isopropylbenzyl alcohol and tin octoate as the initiating system, conversion of the OH-terminated PLLA into Br-terminated macroinitiators (5, 13, and 19 kg/mol), followed by atom transfer radical polymerization of DMAEMA (to obtain one-half, equal, and twice the molecular weight of each PLLA block). Compositional analysis and molecular weight characterization were done using NMR, SEC–LS, TGA, polarimetry, and PDMAEMA quaternization/precipitation to test for residual PLLA homopolymer. DSC investigations indicate that low molecular weight amorphous PLLA or PDMAEMA blocks (less than or equal to ca. 5000 g/mol) are miscible in the second block. Compared to the parent PLLA homopolymers, PLLA crystallization in the block copolymers is significantly retarded, whereas the degree of crystallinity is only mildly affected and melting points are reduced only for the low molecular weight miscible blocks.

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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations39
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacromoleculesSame topicbiodegradable polymer synthesis and propertiesFrench-language works237,207