Gel formation in atom transfer radical polymerization of 2‐(<i>N</i>,<i>N</i>‐dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate and ethylene glycol dimethacrylate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Copolymers of 2‐(N,N‐dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate (DMAEMA) and ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA) were synthesized via atom transfer radical polymerization using ethyl 2‐bromoisobutyrate as the initiator, Cu(I)Br as the catalyst, and 1,1,4,7,10,10‐hexamethyltriethylene tetramine as the ligand. At low crosslinker levels, the polymerizations followed the first‐order kinetics. However, when the crosslinker level was above 10 mol %, the ln([M]0/[M]) versus time curves showed deceleration at medium conversions because of the higher reactivity of EGDMA than that of DMAEMA. An acceleration at high conversions was also observed and probably caused by the diffusion limitations of catalyst/ligand complex in the polymer network. The hydrogels were characterized by swelling experiments, and the sol polymers were characterized by the size exclusion chromatographic technique to determine the number‐average molecular weight and polydispersity. The gel data were analyzed and, via a comparison to Flory's gelation theory, found to be more homogeneous than similar hydrogels prepared by conventional free‐radical polymerization methods. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Polym Sci Part A: Polym Chem 39: 3780–3788, 2001
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".