Polymerisable Miniemulsions Using Rotor‐Stator Homogenisers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".