MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066592534 · doi:10.1002/pola.21988

Atom‐transfer radical polymerization of styrene with bifunctional and monofunctional initiators: Experimental and mathematical modeling results

2007· article· en· W2066592534 on OpenAlexaff
Mamdouh A. Al‐Harthi, Long Cheng, João B. P. Soares, Leonardo C. Simon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Polymer Science Part A Polymer Chemistry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Polymer Synthesis and Characterization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDispersityBifunctionalAtom-transfer radical-polymerizationPolymer chemistryPolymerizationMolar mass distributionChemistryStyreneRadical polymerizationPolymerMonomerCopolymerCatalysisOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Bulk atom transfer radical polymerization (ATRP) of styrene was carried out at 110 °C using benzal bromide as bifunctional initiator and 1‐bromoethyl benzene as monofunctional initiator. CuBr/2,2′‐bipyridyl was used as the ATRP catalyst. The polymerization kinetic data for styrene with both initiators was measured and compared with a mathematical model based on the method of moments and another one using Monte Carlo simulation. An empirical correlation was incorporated into the model to account for diffusion‐controlled termination reactions. Both models can predict monomer conversion, polymer molecular weight averages, and polydispersity index. In addition, the Monte Carlo model can also predict the full molecular weight distribution of the polymer. Our experimental results agree with our model predictions that bifunctional initiators can produce polymers with higher molecular weights and narrower molecular weight distributions than monofunctional initiators. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Polym Sci Part A: Polym Chem 45: 2212–2224, 2007

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Polymer Science Part A Polymer ChemistrySame topicAdvanced Polymer Synthesis and CharacterizationFrench-language works237,207