Poly(vinyl acetate‐<i>co</i>‐dibutyl maleate) latex films in the presence of grafted and post‐added poly(vinyl alcohol)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We describe the synthesis and characterization of a series of poly(vinyl acetate‐co‐dibutyl maleate) [P(VAc‐DBM)] latex particles (monomer molar ratio 10.6:1). One set of samples [high‐MandM250kSDS‐P(VAc‐DBM), gel content 50% and 0%] was prepared in the presence of an anionic surfactant sodium dodecyl sulfate. The other two sets of samples [high‐MandM250kPVOH–P(VAc‐DBM)] were prepared in the presence of poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVOH). These polymers differ in gel content (50 and 0%) and the extent of PVOH grafting (30 and 15%). Polymer diffusion across cell boundaries in the latex films was monitored by fluorescence resonant energy transfer (ET) experiments. First, we examinedM250ksamples in the presence of grafted and post‐added PVOH. The presence of post‐added PVOH (5%) causes a small but detectable retardation on the rate of polymer diffusion, whereas the presence of grafted PVOH (degree of grafting: 15%) significantly promotes the polymer diffusion rate. For the high‐MP(VAc‐DBM), the presence of post‐added PVOH also retards the polymer diffusion. Strikingly, the presence of grafted PVOH (degree of grafting: 30%) in the high‐MPVOH‐P(VAc‐DBM) promotes the polymer diffusion to such an extent that the diffusion was complete in the freshly prepared films. Our data also suggest that under our experimental conditions, the rate of P(VAc‐DBM) diffusion increases with an increase of the degree of PVOH grafting. To confirm these results, we carried out fluorescence microscopy experiments to monitor the fate of PVOH in these latex films and found that in newly formed PVOH–P(VAc‐DBM) films, the PVOH was either uniformly distributed in the P(VAc‐DBM) matrix or the domains were too small to be resolved (i.e., < 0.5 μm). © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Polym Sci Part A: Polym Chem 42: 5005–5020, 2004
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".