Copolymers of 4‐(3′,4′‐Dimethoxycinnamoyl)phenyl Acrylate and MMA: Synthesis, Characterization, Photocrosslinking Properties, and Monomer Reactivity Ratios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4‐(3′,4′‐Dimethoxycinnamoyl)phenyl acrylate (DMCPA) containing pendant chalcone moiety was copolymerized with methyl methacrylate (MMA) by radical polymerization in ethyl methyl ketone at 70°C under a nitrogen atmosphere using benzoyl peroxide (BPO) as a free radical initiator. The prepared polymer was characterized by UV, FT‐IR, 1H‐NMR, and 13C‐NMR spectra. The composition of the copolymer was determined using 1H‐NMR analysis. The monomer reactivity ratios of copolymerization were determined using conventional linearization methods such as Fineman–Ross (r 1 = 0.26 and r 2 = 0.61), Kelen–Tudos (r 1 = 0.26 and r 2 = 0.61), and Ext. Kelen–Tudos (r 1 = 0.23 and r 2 = 0.59), and a non‐linear error‐in‐variables model (EVM) method using the computer program RREVM (r 1 = 0.2541 and r 2 = 0.6094). The molecular weights (M w and M n) of the copolymers were determined by gel permeation chromatography. Thermogravimetric analysis of the polymers in air reveals that the stability of the copolymers decreases with an increase in the mole fraction of MMA in the copolymers. The solubility of the polymers was tested in various polar and non‐polar solvents. The glass transition temperature of the copolymers was determined as a function of copolymer composition. The copolymers were sensitive to UV light and became crosslinked after irradiation with 254 nm light.
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".