Polymer Interdiffusion vs Cross-Linking in Carboxylic Acid−Carbodiimide Latex Films. Effect of Annealing Temperature, Reactive Group Concentration, and Carbodiimide Substituent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes the results of experiments examining the competition between the polymer interdiffusion and a cross-linking reaction in poly(2-ethylhexyl methacrylate) latex blend films in which the reactive groups (carboxylic acid and carbodiimide groups) are present in separate latex particles. In this system, polymer diffusion is necessary to bring the reactive groups into proximity, but the reaction creates long chain branches and gel that retard or inhibit further polymer diffusion. To enable measuring polymer diffusion rates by the energy transfer method, the methacrylic acid-containing particles were also labeled with a donor dye, and the −NCN-containing particles were labeled with an acceptor dye. Along with the extent of polymer diffusion, we monitored the growth in gel content as well as the consumption of carbodiimide groups. High gel content in the final film was promoted by factors that maximize the rate of polymer diffusion relative to the rate of the cross-linking reaction: high annealing temperature, low functional group content, and less reactive carbodiimide groups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".