On the Correlation between Miscibility and Solubility Properties of Energetic Plasticizers/Polymer Blends: Modeling and Simulation Studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, systems for which miscibility (hydroxyl‐terminated polybutadiene–dioctyl adipate or HTPB–DOA) or immiscibility (HTPB–diethylene glycol dinitrate or HTPB–DEGDN) have been firmly established were used to test the usefulness of an atomistic molecular mechanics model. Two specific aspects were discussed: miscibility assessment of a plasticizer/polymer blend, and predictions of the enthalpy of vaporization. Simulations were carried out using Amorphous Cell and Discover packages of the Material Studio software using Compass force field for all calculations. A good agreement has been found for miscibility observations of blends, and for solubility parameter, density, and derived enthalpy of vaporization for pure substances. Therefore, the approach proposed in this work is a useful tool to provide insights on miscibility and properties of a given polymer/plasticizer blend. In addition, it is a promising technique to help in screening among several plastic bonded explosive (PBX) formulations prior to real experimental tests.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it