Self-consistent field theory of tethered polymers: One dimensional, three dimensional, strong stretching theories and the effects of excluded-volume-only interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examine end-tethered polymers in good solvents, using one- and three-dimensional self-consistent field theory, and strong stretching theories. We also discuss different tethering scenarios, namely, mobile tethers, fixed but random ones, and fixed but ordered ones, and the effects and important limitations of including only binary interactions (excluded volume terms). We find that there is a "mushroom" regime in which the layer thickness is independent of the tethering density, σ, for systems with ordered tethers, but we argue that there is no such plateau for mobile or disordered anchors, nor is there one in the 1D theory. In the other limit of brushes, all approaches predict that the layer thickness scales linearly with N. However, the σ(1/3) scaling is a result of keeping only excluded volume interactions: when the full potential is included, the dependence is faster and more complicated than σ(1/3). In fact, there does not appear to be any regime in which the layer thickness scales in the combination Nσ(1/3). We also compare the results for two different solvents with each other, and with earlier Θ solvent results.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".