Comparison of specific interactions in P4VP/PSCA and PS4VP/PSCA blends and complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The compatibilization of an immiscible polymer system polystyrene/poly(4‐vinylpyridine) has been induced by the introduction of carboxylic acid groups within the polystyrene chains. Poly(styrene‐co‐cinnamic acid), PSCA, copolymers were used to prepare blends and complexes with poly(4‐vinylpyridine), P4VP, and in a second time with poly(styrene‐co‐4‐vinylpyridine), PS4VP, copolymer in order to reduce the density of the interacting groups. The miscibility of the systems has been ascertained by DSC, which revealed that both blends and complexes exhibit a single glass transition temperature indicating their single phase nature. The Tgs of the complexes of PS4VP with PSCA15, containing 15 mol % of cinnamic acid content, were higher than those of the corresponding blends indicating that stronger interpolymer interactions were developed in the complexes. Furthermore, the application of the Kwei equation suggested that P4VP interacts more strongly with PSCA15 than does PS4VP. FTIR spectra revealed the development of hydrogen bonding within the PS4VP/PSCA system and both hydrogen bonding and ionic interaction in the P4VP/PSCA blends whereas the same interactions were expected in both systems. This observation confirmed the stronger ability of P4VP to interact with PSCA copolymer. The viscosimetric study showed both positive and negative deviations of the reduced viscosity of the blends from the additivity law confirming the presence of specific interactions within the blend solutions. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2008
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) | 0.001 | 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".