MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018252922 · doi:10.1002/app.1958

Bulk and solution copolymerization of methyl methacrylate and vinyl acetate

2001· article· en· W2018252922 on OpenAlexafffund
M. J. Scorah, Hong Hua, Marc A. Dubé

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Polymer Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Polymer Synthesis and Characterization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMonomerCopolymerReactivity (psychology)Vinyl acetatePolymer chemistryMethyl methacrylateTolueneSolventMethacrylateMolar mass distributionChemistryPolymerOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 r MMA and r VAc , 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 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 score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations20
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Polymer ScienceSame topicAdvanced Polymer Synthesis and CharacterizationFrench-language works237,207