Semi‐ and full‐interpenetrating polymer networks based on polyurethane produced from canola oil and poly(methyl methacrylate)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Semi‐ and full‐interpenetrating polymer networks (IPNs) were prepared using polyurethane (PUR) produced from a canola oil‐based polyol with primary terminal functional groups and poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA). The properties of the material were studied and compared using dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), and tensile measurements. The morphology of the IPNs was investigated using atomic force microscopy (AFM). Semi‐IPNs demonstrated different thermal mechanical properties, mechanical properties, phase behavior, and morphology from full IPNs. Both types of IPNs studied are two‐phase systems with incomplete phase separation. However, the extent of phase separation is significantly more advanced in the semi‐IPNs compared with the full IPNs. All the semi‐IPNs exhibited higher values of elongation at break for all proportions of acrylate to polyurethane compared with the corresponding full IPNs. These differences are mainly due to the fact that in the case of semi‐IPNs, one of the constituting polymers remains linear, so that it exhibits a loosely packed network and relatively high mobility, whereas in the case of full IPNs, there is a higher degree of crosslinking, which restricts the mobility of the chains. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2009
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".