Arborescent micelles: Dendritic poly(γ‐benzyl <scp>l</scp>‐glutamate) cores grafted with hydrophilic chain segments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Amphiphilic copolymers were obtained by grafting arborescent poly(γ‐benzyl l‐glutamate) (PBG) cores of generations G1–G3 with polyglycidol, poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO), or poly(l‐glutamic acid) (PGA) chain segments. The PBG substrates were synthesized by two methods: (1) subjecting PBG samples with a dispersity Đ = Mw/Mn < 1.1 to partial acidolysis of the benzyl ester groups, to produce randomly distributed carboxylic acid functionalities, and (2) using PBG chains containing a glutamic acid di‐tert‐butyl ester initiator fragment in the last grafting cycle of the PBG core synthesis, and selective acidolysis of the tert‐butyl ester groups to obtain substrates with carboxylic acid termini. Linear polymers with Đ < 1.20 and a primary amine terminus were also synthesized to serve as hydrophilic shell materials: Polyglycidol and PEO by anionic polymerization, and PGA by N‐carboxyanhydride ring‐opening polymerization. These polymers, combined with the two different PGB substrate types, allowed the evaluation of the usefulness of random versus chain‐end grafting in producing arborescent copolymers useful as unimolecular micelles in organic and aqueous media. Size exclusion chromatography served to determine the grafting yield, molar mass, dispersity, and branching functionality of the copolymers. Dynamic light scattering measurements provided information on their aggregation behavior in aqueous environments. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. 2016, 54, 1197–1209
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".