MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079741147 · doi:10.1002/pola.21273

Effect of the molecular weight and architecture on the size and glass transition of arborescent polyisobutylenes

2006· article· en· W2079741147 on OpenAlexaff
Judit E. Puskás, Yaohong Chen, Kevin Kulbaba, Gábor Kaszás, Ali Soleymannezhad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Polymer Science Part A Polymer Chemistry · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicDendrimers and Hyperbranched Polymers
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityLanxess (Canada)
FundersAmerican Chemical Society Petroleum Research Fund
KeywordsRadius of gyrationGlass transitionDifferential scanning calorimetryPolymer chemistryMolar mass distributionViscometerHydrodynamic radiusSize-exclusion chromatographyChemistryPolymerGel permeation chromatographyThermodynamicsCopolymerOrganic chemistryViscosityPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article discusses the characterization of arborescent (hyperbranched) polyisobutylenes (arb‐PIBs) by size exclusion chromatography and differential scanning calorimetry, in comparison with linear PIB standards. The radius of gyration (〈 r 〉 1/2 = R z ), measured from the angle dependence of light scattering of high‐molecular‐weight arb‐PIBs, was significantly larger than the hydrodynamic radius ( R h ) from size exclusion chromatography/viscometry, and the R h values were significantly smaller than R h of linear PIBs. The glass‐transition temperature of arb‐PIBs having a branch molecular weight higher than the critical entanglement molecular weight was dependent on both the total number‐average molecular weight and BR up to BR ∼ 15. A modified Fox–Flory equation is proposed to describe the effect of architecture on the thermal transition. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Polym Sci Part A: Polym Chem 44: 1770–1776, 2006

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)0.001
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations29
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Polymer Science Part A Polymer ChemistrySame topicDendrimers and Hyperbranched PolymersFrench-language works237,207