MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089734411 · doi:10.1002/app.38691

ABS modified with hydrogenated polystyrene‐<i>grafted</i>‐natural rubber

2012· article· en· W2089734411 on OpenAlexaff
Anawat Pisuttisap, Napida Hinchiranan, Garry L. Rempel, Pattarapan Prasassarakich

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Polymer Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Nanocomposites and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersDivision of Chemistry
KeywordsMaterials scienceNatural rubberPolymer chemistryCopolymerPolystyreneStyreneAcrylonitrileThermal stabilityMonomerGraftingPolymerizationMaleic anhydrideNuclear chemistryChemistryPolymerComposite materialOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Natural rubber (NR) latex was grafted by emulsion polymerization with styrene monomer, using cumene hydroperoxide/tetraethylene pentamene as redox initiator system. The polystyrene‐grafted NR (PS‐ g ‐NR) was hydrogenated by diimide reduction in the latex form using hydrazine and hydrogen peroxide with boric acid as a promoter. At the optimum condition for graft copolymerization, a grafting efficiency of 81.5% was obtained. In addition, the highest hydrogenation level of 47.2% was achieved using a hydrazine:hydrogen peroxide molar ratio of 1:1.1. Hydrogenation of the PS‐ g ‐NR (H(PS‐ g ‐NR)) increased the thermal stability. Transmission electron microscopy analysis of the H(PS‐ g ‐NR) particles revealed a nonhydrogenated rubber core and hydrogenated outer rubber layer, in accordance with the layer model. The addition of H(PS‐ g ‐NR) at 10 wt % as modifier in an acrylonitrile–butadiene–styrene (ABS) copolymer increased the tensile and impact strengths and the thermal resistance of the ABS blends, and to a greater extent than that provided by blending with NR or PS‐ g ‐NR. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 2013

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.664

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.205 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Polymer ScienceSame topicPolymer Nanocomposites and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207