Thermodynamics and Morphology of Latex Blend Films
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a model to describe direct nonradiative energy transfer (DET) between donors and acceptors chemically attached to the two different components of a latex blend. The model describes the case of one polymer dispersed as spheres of identical diameter in a continuous matrix of the second polymer. The segment distribution of the two polymers in the interface region is calculated taking into account the binodal compositions of the polymers in the different blend domains, the amount of each component, and the theory of the interfacial region between two polymers. The model was used to characterize the interface between poly(butyl methacrylate) (PBMA) and poly(2-ethylhexyl methacrylate) (PEHMA) domains in a binary blend, that we have examined previously ( Macromolecules 2000, 33, 5863). We found a drastic dependence of the donor fluorescence survival probability curves on the Flory−Huggins χ parameter and on the PBMA:PEHMA weight ratio. Since the latter ratio is known from the experimental conditions, we were able to calculate χ = 0.021 from the measurements with very low uncertainty, and infer the interface thickness between the domains in the blend as approximately 5.5 nm.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".