A difference of six orders of magnitude: A reply to “the magnitude of the fragmentation rate coefficient”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There has been an ongoing debate regarding the mechanism that causes rate retardation phenomena observed in some reversible addition‐fragmentation transfer (RAFT) polymerization systems. Some attribute the retardation to slow fragmentation of adduct radicals, others attribute it to fast fragmentation coupled with cross‐termination between propagating and adduct radicals. There exists a difference of six orders of magnitude (10−2 versus 104/s) in the reported values of the fragmentation rate constant (kf0) for virtually similar RAFT systems of PStSC · (Ph)SPSt. In this communication, we explain the estimates of kf ∼ 104/s and the choices of the rate constant in modeling based on experimental polymerization rate and radical concentration data. The use of kf ∼ 10−2/s in the model results in a calculated adduct radical concentration level of 10−4 to 10−3 mol/L, which appears to directly contradict the reported electron spin resonance (ESR) data in the range of <10−6 mol/L. We hope that this open discussion can stimulate more effort to resolve this outstanding difference. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Polym Sci Part A: Polym Chem 41: 2833–2839, 2003
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 | 0.022 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.064 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
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".