Synthesis of comb‐branched polyacrylamide with cationic poly[(2‐dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate dimethylsulfate] quat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Comb‐branched polyelectrolytes with polyacrylamide backbones and poly[(2‐dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate methylsulfate] (polyDMAEMA‐DMS) side chains were prepared by free‐radical macromonomer polymerization. PolyDMAEMA‐DMS macromonomers bearing terminal styrenic moieties were synthesized by living anionic polymerization with lithium 4‐vinylbenzylamide (LiVBA) and lithium N ‐isopropyl‐4‐vinylbenzylamide (LiPVBA) as initiators. In the presence of LiCl, LiPVBA initiated a living polymerization of 2‐(dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate (DMAEMA) and produced polymers with well‐controlled molecular weights and low polydispersities. LiVBA could not directly initiate DMAEMA polymerization. After being capped with two units of dimethylacrylamide, DMAEMA polymerized with an initiator efficiency of 63%. The quaternization of the poly[(2‐dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate] macromonomer with dimethyl sulfate yielded the cationic polyDMAEMA‐DMS macromonomer. The polyDMAEMA‐DMS macromonomer had a much higher reactivity than acrylamide in free‐radical polymerization. This might have been due to the formation of polyDMAEMA‐DMS micelles in the polymerization system. The high macromonomer reactivity caused composition drift in a batch process. A semibatch method with a constant polyDMAEMA‐DMS feed rate was used to control the copolymer composition. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Polym Sci Part A: Polym Chem 40: 2394–2405, 2002
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".