Bulk and solution copolymerization of methyl methacrylate and vinyl acetate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A series of batch, bulk and solution (in toluene) copolymerizations of methyl methacrylate and vinyl acetate was performed under various reaction conditions to high monomer conversions. In addition, low conversion bulk experiments were performed to estimate monomer reactivity ratios using the error in variables model method, based on terminal model (Mayo–Lewis) kinetics. A combination of the low and high conversion data with data from a previous study yielded reactivity ratio (r) estimates of 27.465 and 0.0102 for rMMA and rVAc, respectively, using the integrated copolymer composition (Meyer–Lowry) equation. In the high conversion experiments the effects of various factors on the reaction rate, cumulative copolymer composition, number‐ and weight‐average molecular weights, and molecular weight distribution were studied. The factors included the monomer feed composition, initiator concentration, temperature, solvent concentration, and the addition of n‐dodecyl mercaptan chain transfer agent. These factors were examined in light of the wide difference in the monomer reactivity ratios. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 82: 1238–1255, 2001
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".