Morphology and thermal properties of two polymethacrylates modified by a polymer liquid crystal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We have studied blends of a polymer liquid crystal (PLC) with poly(cyclohexylethyl methacrylate) (PCHEMA) or poly(cyclohexylpropyl methacrylate) (PCHPMA). The PLC is PET/0.6PHB where PET = poly(ethylene terephthalate), PHB = p‐hydroxybenzoic acid and 0.6 is the mole fraction of the latter in the copolymer. The microstructure was studied by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). PCHEMA + PLC (20 wt% of the latter, blend E) has a fine texture with LC islands evenly distributed in the matrix and good adhesion between the phases resulting from their partial miscibility. The PCHPMA + PLC (20 wt% of the latter, blend P) shows only limited compatibility. The SEM results are confirmed by values of the glass transition temperatures Tg determined via thermal mechanical analysis. The Tg value of the blend E is shifted towards the Tg of PLC; Tg of blend P is practically equal to that of PCHPMA. The linear isobaric expansivity αL values for both blends are lower than the respective values for pure PCHPMA and PCHEMA. Thermal stabilities of the blends determined by thermogravimetry are also better than those of pure polymethacrylates. The temperature of 50% weight degradation for blend E is higher than that for pure PCHEMA by more than 60 K Copyright © 2004 Society of Chemical Industry
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".