Triblock terpolymer helices self-assembled under special solvation conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We recently reported an accidental discovery that a linear triblock terpolymer, poly(butyl methacrylate)-block-poly(2-cinnamoyloxyethyl methacrylate)-block-poly(tert-butyl acrylate) (B350C160T160, with the subscripts denoting the numbers of repeat units for the different blocks), self-assembled into double, and sometimes triple, helices in three binary solvent mixtures that were marginal for the B350 block, poor for the C160 block, and good for the T160 block. We show in this paper that double helices were formed as a self-assembly product from B350C160T160 in another three solvent mixtures. Also, a triple-stranded superstructure bearing helical sections was prepared from a new BnCmTl sample, which was B240C120T120. In addition, we have replaced some of the cinnamoyl groups of the C120 block with three types of chiral groups. Multi-stranded superstructures bearing helical sections were produced in every case when the solvents met the special solvation conditions. The partial or full hydrolysis of the T160 and T120 blocks of the two terpolymers yielded acrylic acid bearing blocks and represented the largest structural change from the original terpolymers. Interestingly, these polymers formed helices as well. These helices were double-stranded and had regular pitch lengths. These new results suggest that the use of the special solvation conditions may represent a general paradigm for the production of helices from different triblock terpolymers.
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".