Synthesis of arborescent styrene homopolymers and copolymers from epoxidized substrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The synthesis of arborescent styrenic homopolymers and copolymers was achieved by anionic polymerization and grafting. Styrene and p‐(3‐butenyl)styrene were first copolymerized using sec‐butyllithium in toluene, to generate a linear copolymer with a weight‐average molecular weight Mw = 4000 and Mw/Mn = 1.05. The pendant double bonds of the copolymer were then epoxidized with m‐chloroperbenzoic acid. A comb‐branched (or arborescent generation G0) copolymer was obtained by coupling the epoxidized substrate with living styrene‐p‐(3‐butenyl)styrene copolymer chains with Mw ≈ 5000 in a toluene/tetrahydrofuran mixture. Further cycles of epoxidation and coupling reactions while maintaining Mw ≈ 5000 for the side chains yielded arborescent copolymers of generations G1–G3. A series of arborescent styrene homopolymers was also obtained by grafting Mw ≈ 5000 polystyrene side chains onto the linear and G0–G2 copolymer substrates. Size exclusion chromatography measurements showed that the graft polymers have low polydispersity indices (Mw/Mn = 1.02–1.15) and molecular weights increasing geometrically over successive generations. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Polym Sci Part A: Polym Chem, 2012
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".