MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081488933 · doi:10.1002/mren.200800007

Polymerisable Miniemulsions Using Rotor‐Stator Homogenisers

2008· article· en· W2081488933 on OpenAlexaff
Ula El‐Jaby, Michael F. Cunningham, Tom Enright, Timothy Fl Mckenna

Bibliographic record

VenueMacromolecular Reaction Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSurfactants and Colloidal Systems
Canadian institutionsXerox (Canada)Queen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMiniemulsionDispersityMaterials scienceCoalescence (physics)Particle sizeChemical engineeringParticle-size distributionParticle (ecology)NanotechnologyComposite materialPolymer chemistryPolymerizationPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The use of a rotor‐stator mixer as a homogenisation device to make miniemulsion droplets with industrially pertinent solid contents was investigated. Methyl methacrylate/butyl acrylate (50:50 w/w ratio) miniemulsions with droplet diameters from 2 µm to 300 nm and polydispersity indices from 1.2 to 3.6 were used. Miniemulsions with three different mean droplet diameters (300, 400, 600 nm) were polymerised and the evolution of particle size was observed. When 300 nm droplets were polymerised they yielded particles of similar diameter to the original droplets, whereas particle coalescence of the growing particles with a loss of control over the particle size distribution was observed for the 400 and 600 nm droplets. The influence of costabiliser, agitation speed, solid content, colloidal protectors and surface coverage on the evolution of the droplet size and size distribution as well as on the evolution of the average particle size and its distribution were examined. It was observed that changing the above parameters had no impact on the evolution of the particle size, suggesting we have a very robust miniemulsion system. magnified image

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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacromolecular Reaction EngineeringSame topicSurfactants and Colloidal SystemsFrench-language works237,207