Calculations of Monomer Conversion and Radical Concentration in Reversible Addition‐Fragmentation Chain Transfer Radical Polymerization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Simple expressions are derived for the development of monomer conversion, as well as propagating radical, adduct radical, dormant chain, and dead chain concentrations in reverse addition‐fragmentation transfer polymerization (RAFT). The relations for the profiles of propagating radical concentration and conversion versus time are derived and depend on group parameters of rate constants and chemical recipe. The analytical equations are verified against numerical solutions of the mass‐balance differential equations. This derivation involves the steady‐state hypothesis for radical and RAFT agent concentrations. The errors introduced by these assumptions are negligible when the fragmentation rate constant, kf, is higher than 10 s−1 or when the cross‐termination rate constant, kct, is higher than 105 L · mol−1 s−1. Calculated concentration profiles (points: numerical, lines: analytical) of propagating radical R, adduct radical A, dormant T, and dead D (= P + P′) chains. image Calculated concentration profiles (points: numerical, lines: analytical) of propagating radical R, adduct radical A, dormant T, and dead D (= P + P′) chains.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".