MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098217167 · doi:10.1021/jp013619b

Solution Properties of Self-Assembled Amphiphilic Copolymers Determined by Isomerization Spectroscopy

2002· article· en· W2098217167 on OpenAlexaff
Lana Norman, Christopher J. Barrett

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry B · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSurfactants and Colloidal Systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsomerizationChemistryAqueous solutionAmphiphileChromophorePolymerCopolymerPhotochemistryPolymer chemistrySolventOrganic chemistryCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amphiphilic copolymers of hydrophobic Disperse Red 1 acrylate (DR1A) and hydrophilic acrylic acid (AA) were dissolved in THF and a H 2 O/THF cosolvent series. The thermal cis-to-trans isomerization behavior of the azo groups was measured by means of flash photolysis to investigate self-assembled structure in solution. The rate constants observed for the azo-containing polymers permit an estimation of how the thermal isomerization is influenced by both polymer and solution properties. In pure THF the relaxation was observed to be the usual monoexponential decay. In mixed aqueous−organic solvent solutions however, all poly(DR1A- co -AA) samples showed a highly unusual biexponential rate decay, with both a slow isomerization process due to inhibited mobility of the azo groups, and a faster isomerization process for unaggregated azo groups. In these systems, the relaxation of the cis-isomer was fit well with a biexponential function, which clearly demonstrates two distinct local chromophore environments. The spectroscopic results of this study suggest that weakly aggregated states of the amphiphilic polymers in an aqueous−organic solution can be readily studied through the simple technique of isomerization spectroscopy to estimate the fractions of aggregated groups involved and their local environment.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations17
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry BSame topicSurfactants and Colloidal SystemsFrench-language works237,207