Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Three types of chitosan–glutaraldehyde (Chi–Glu) crosslinked copolymer materials were prepared at various Chi–Glu weight ratios (i.e., 1 : 0.0835, 1 : 0.334, and 1 : 0.585) and variable reaction times. The corresponding Chi–Glu copolymer materials were imbibed in CuSO 4 solution to yield impregnated materials in the form of copolymer/Cu(II) complexes. The copolymer materials were characterized using FTIR spectroscopy and thermogravimetry analysis. Urea sorption isotherms were obtained in aqueous solution at 295 K and pH 7 with pristine chitosan, Chi–Glu copolymers (i.e., 1 : 0.0835 and 1 : 0.585), and the corresponding Chi–Glu/Cu(II) complexes. The concentration of unbound urea was monitored indirectly using a colorimetric method with p ‐dimethylaminobenzaldehyde. The equilibrium adsorption data were analyzed using the Sips isotherm model. The uptake of urea with pristine chitosan was 4.7% w/w, whereas Chi–Glu copolymers display increased sorption ( Q m = 10.6–17.1% w/w) with increasing glutaraldehyde content. Urea sorption is further enhanced ( Q m = 16.3–26.4% w/w) for copolymer Chi–Glu/Cu(II) complexes. The preparation of Chi–Glu copolymers at various conditions illustrates that the sorption capacity and molecular recognition of urea can be systematically tuned via crosslinking and the formation of copolymer/Cu(II) complexes, and these results are related to a previously reported study (Shimizu and Fujishige, J. Biomed. Mater. Res . 1983, 17, 597). © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 2013
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".