MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008860275 · doi:10.1021/jp0039722

Maleated Ethylene-Propylene Random Copolymers:  Determination of the Microstructure and Association Level by Fluorescence Spectroscopy

2001· article· en· W2008860275 on OpenAlexaff
Veena Vangani, Jillian Drage, Junaid Mehta, Anna K. Mathew, Jean Duhamel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry B · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPhotochemistry and Electron Transfer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPyreneExcimerMonomerCopolymerFluorescence spectroscopyFluorescenceChemistryPolymer chemistrySuccinic anhydridePolarFluorescence spectrometryPhotochemistryPolymerOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A maleated ethylene-propylene (EP) random copolymer was labeled with the fluorescent dye 1-pyrenebutanoicacid hydrazide to yield EP−Py. Fluorescence spectroscopy was used to determine the microstructure of EP−Py (i.e., the distribution of the pendants along the chain) in THF where little association is expected to occur between the polar pendants. In hexane, an apolar solvent, associations take place between the polar pendants and the association level of EP−Py (i.e., fractions of pendants, which are associated and unassociated) was estimated by analyzing quantitatively both the monomer and the excimer fluorescence decays. The ability of pyrene to form an excimer was used to carry out this study. The excimer formation process was monitored by using a combination of two models, namely the sequential model and the blob model. Both monomer and excimer decays were analyzed in order to completely describe the distribution of pyrene groups. It was found that 70% of all pyrene groups are located at small distances from one another and form excimer readily. In apolar hexane, 87% of all pyrene groups are involved into loose pyrene aggregates, held together via polar interactions between the succinic anhydride groups.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry BSame topicPhotochemistry and Electron Transfer StudiesFrench-language works237,207