Synthesis and ring‐opening polymerization of co‐cyclic(aromatic aliphatic disulfide) oligomers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An effective approach was presented for the synthesis of co‐cyclic(aromatic aliphatic disulfide) oligomers by catalytic oxidation of aromatic and aliphatic dithiols with oxygen in the presence of a copper‐amine catalyst. The aromatic dithiols can be 4,4′‐oxybis(benzenethiol), 4,4′‐diphenyl dithiol, 4,4′‐diphenylsulfone dithiol. The aliphatic dithiols can be 1,2‐ethanedithiol, 2,3‐butanedithiol, 1,6‐hexane dithiol. The co‐cyclic(aromatic aliphatic disulfide) oligomers were characterized by gradient HPLC, MALDI‐TOF‐MS, GPC, 1H‐NMR, TGA, and DSC techniques. The glass transition temperatures of these co‐cyclics ranged from −11.3 to 56.6°C. In general, these co‐cyclic(aromatic aliphatic disulfide) oligomers are soluble in common organic solvents, such as CHCl3, THF, DMF, DMAc. These co‐cyclic oligomers readily underwent free radical ring‐opening polymerization in the melt at 180°C, producing linear, tough and high molecular weight poly(aromatic aliphatic disulfide)s. The glass transition temperatures of these polymers ranged from −3.7 to 107.8°C that are higher than those of corresponding co‐cyclics. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".