Preparation and characterization of narrow compositional distribution polyampholytes as potential biomaterials: Copolymers of <i>N</i>‐(3‐aminopropyl)methacrylamide hydrochloride (APM) and methacrylic acid (MAA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This article describes the preparation and solution properties of a series of polyampholytes composed of N ‐(3‐aminopropyl)methacrylamide hydrochloride (APM) and methacrylic acid (MAA). In particular, conditions were found where the copolymers could be formed with little or no drift in composition over the course of polymerization to quite high conversions. The compositional drift, common to many copolymerizations, was limited by adjusting the reactivity of MAA through control of its degree of ionization (i.e., pH). As revealed by potentiometric measurements and changes in 1 H NMR spectra, the solution pH drifted over the course of some polymerizations. This was ascribed to changes in the p K a values of the ammonium and carboxylate groups upon incorporation in the copolymer. The pH drift led to a change in degree of MAA ionization, and hence the relative reactivities of APM and MAA, but this effect could be minimized by using a buffer. Precipitation, which occurred during some polymerizations, could be prevented, in some cases, by the addition of salt or an organic cosolvent. Even in cases where precipitation could not be prevented, it was found that the copolymer was still formed with minimal compositional drift. The solubility of the resulting polyampholytes in aqueous solution was found to depend on their composition, as well as pH, ionic strength and temperature. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. 2015 , 53 , 353–365
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".