Polyelectrolyte complexation between poly(methacrylic acid, sodium salt) and poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride) or poly[2‐(methacryloyloxyethyl) trimethylammonium chloride]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Polyelectrolyte complexes between poly(methacrylic acid, sodium salt) and poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride) (PDADMAC) or poly[2‐(methacryloyloxyethyl)trimethylammonium chloride] (PMOETAC) form gels, liquid phases, or soluble complexes depending on charge ratio, total polymer loading, polymer molecular weight, and ionic strength. Increasing the ionic strength of the medium led most polyelectrolyte pairs to transition from gel through liquid complexes (complex coacervate) to soluble complexes. These transitions shift to higher ionic strengths for higher molecular weight polymers, as well as for PMOETAC compared to PDADMAC. The complex phases swelled with increasing polymer loading, ultimately merging with the supernatant phase at a critical polymer loading. The isolated liquid complex phases below and above this critical loading were temperature‐sensitive, showing cloud points followed by macroscopic phase separation upon heating. Incorporating 5 mol % lauryl methacrylate into the polyanion led to increased complex yield with PDADMAC, and increased resistance to ionic strength. In contrast, incorporating 30 mol % of oligo(ethylene glycol) methacrylate into the polyanion led to decreased complex yield, and to lower resistance to ionic strength. Two polyelectrolyte systems that produced liquid complexes were used to encapsulate hydrophobic oils, and in one case were used to demonstrate the feasibility of crosslinking the resulting capsule walls. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Polym Sci Part A: Polym Chem 45: 4129–4143, 2007
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) | 0.001 | 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".