Differential scanning calorimetry of copolymer of isotactic polypropylene backbone with grafted poly(ethylene‐<i>co</i>‐propylene) branches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A series of graft polymers having polypropylene (PP) backbone and poly(ethylene‐ co ‐propylene) (EPR) side chains was prepared. PP backbone molecular weight ( M n ) was 28–98 kg/mol, EPR side chain M n was 2.6–17 kg/mol, and EPR content was 0–16 wt %. In this work, thermal analysis of the copolymers was performed using differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). Nonisothermal crystallization was performed at different cooling rates. The DSC thermograms revealed multiple melting peaks for slowly cooled samples, most likely the result of the melting of thinner tangential lamellae followed by the melting of thicker radial lamellae. Equilibrium melting temperature ( T m 0 ) was determined using the linear Hoffman–Weeks method. Another approach was also used for determining T m 0 : melting temperature ( T m ) and crystallization temperature ( T c ) were plotted as functions of logarithmic cooling rate. Linear relationships were observed for all samples with the cross points as T m 0 's. As cooling rate decreased, T c , T m , and enthalpy of fusion (Δ H f ) increased. T m and T m 0 increased with increasing PP M n . T c and T m were unaffected by the grafting of EPR onto the PP backbone. T m 0 and Δ H f decreased as EPR content increased. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 99: 3380–3388, 2006
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".