MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104886520 · doi:10.1002/app.13715

Pervaporation of 1,2‐dimethoxyethane from aqueous solutions by crosslinked oligosilylstyrene–poly(dimethylsiloxane) composite membranes

2004· article· en· W2104886520 on OpenAlexaff
Liang Liang, James M. Dickson, Jianxiong Jiang, Michael A. Brook

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Polymer Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMembrane Separation and Gas Transport
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPervaporationPolysulfoneMembraneUltrafiltration (renal)Polymer chemistryMaterials scienceAqueous solutionComposite numberChemical engineeringPermeationPolymerChemistryComposite materialOrganic chemistryChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Crosslinked oligosilylstyrene–poly(dimethylsiloxane) composite membranes were used to separate 1,2‐dimethoxyethane (1,2‐DME) from dilute aqueous solutions through a pervaporation process. The composite membranes were prepared through the casting of solutions of H‐terminated oligosilylstyrene and vinyl‐terminated poly(dimethylsiloxane) onto the surfaces of polysulfone ultrafiltration membranes. A crosslinked poly(dimethylsiloxane) gel was generated through the reaction of H‐terminated oligosilylstyrene and vinyl‐terminated poly(dimethylsiloxane), with a platinum complex used as a catalyst. The pervaporation characteristics of the composite membranes were investigated with respect to the feed composition of 1,2‐DME, the feed temperature, the downstream pressure, and the top‐layer thickness of the composite membranes. The composite membranes exhibited preferential selectivity to 1,2‐DME. Depending on the operation conditions, the separation factor and permeation rate of 1,2‐DME were 55–184 and 0.31–3.3 g/m 2 h, respectively. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 92: 2284–2294, 2004

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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Polymer ScienceSame topicMembrane Separation and Gas TransportFrench-language works237,207