Thermally induced phase separation in liquid crystalline polymer/polycarbonate blends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Thermally induced phase separation in liquid crystalline polymer (LCP)/polycarbonate (PC) blends was investigated in this study. The LCP used is a main‐chain type copolyester comprised of p ‐hydroxybenoic acid and 6‐hydroxy‐2‐naphthoic acid. Specimens for microscopic observation were prepared by melt blending. The specimens were heated to a preselected temperature, at which they were held for isothermal phase separation. The preselected temperatures used in this study were 265, 290, and 300°C. The LCP contents used were 10, 20, and 50 wt %. These parameters corresponded to different positions on the phase diagram of the blends. The development of the phase‐separated morphology in the blends was monitored in real time and space. It was observed that an initial rapid phase separation was followed by the coarsening of the dispersed domains. The blends developed into various types of phase‐separated morphology, depending on the concentration and temperature at which phase separation occurred. The following coarsening mechanisms of the phase‐separated domains were observed in the late stages of the phase separation in these blends: (i) diffusion and coalescence of the LCP‐rich droplets; (ii) vanishing of the PC‐rich domains following the evaporation‐condensation mechanism; and (iii) breakage and shrinkage of the LCP‐rich domains. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2010
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".