“Smart” poly(2‐(dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate‐<i>ran</i>‐9‐(4‐vinylbenzyl)‐9H‐carbazole) copolymers synthesized by nitroxide mediated radical polymerization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A series of poly(2‐(dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate‐ran‐9‐(4‐vinylbenzyl)‐9H‐carbazole) (poly(DMAEMA‐ran‐VBK)) random copolymers, with VBK molar feed compositions fVBK,0 = 0.02–0.09, were synthesized using 10 mol % [tert‐butyl[1‐(diethoxyphosphoryl)‐2,2‐dimethylpropyl]amino] nitroxide (SG1) relative to 2‐([tert‐butyl[1‐(diethoxyphosphoryl)‐2,2‐dimethylpropyl]amino]oxy)‐2‐methylpropionic acid (BlocBuilder) at 80 °C and 90 °C. Controlled polymerizations were observed, even with fVBK,0 = 0.02, as reflected by a linear increase in number average molecular weight (Mn) versus conversion X ≤ 0.6 with final copolymers characterized by relatively narrow, monomodal molecular weight distributions (Mw/Mn ≈ 1.5). Poly(DMAEMA‐ran‐VBK) copolymers were deemed sufficiently pseudo‐“living” to reinitiate a second batch of N,N‐dimethylacrylamide (DMAA), with very few apparent dead chains, as indicated by the monomodal shift in the gel permeation chromatography chromatograms. Poly(DMAEMA‐ran‐VBK) random copolymers exhibited tuneable lower critical solution temperature (LCST), in aqueous solution, by modifying copolymer composition, solution pH and by the addition of the water‐soluble poly(DMAA) segment. 1H NMR analysis determined that, in water, the VBK units of the poly(DMAEMA‐ran‐VBK) random copolymer were segregated to the interior of the copolymer aggregate regardless of solution temperature and that poly(DMAEMA‐ran‐VBK)‐b‐poly(DMAA) block copolymers formed micelles above the LCST. In addition, the final random copolymer and block copolymer exhibited temperature dependent fluorescence due to the VBK units. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Polym Sci Part A: Polym Chem, 2011
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".