Crystal Growth Mechanism Changes in Pseudo-Dewetted Poly(ethylene oxide) Thin Layers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes in the crystal growth mechanism were observed in pseudo-dewetted, thin layers of low molecular weight (MW) poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO) on a hydrophilic mica surface. The studies were conducted using two PEO fractions (HPEO and MHPEO) with similar MW's (number-average MW of around 4500 g/mol) but different end-group chemistries. For the HPEO, both ends of the chain are capped by −OH groups. For the MHPEO, one end is capped by an −OH group, while the other end is capped by an −OCH 3 group. Utilizing in-situ atomic force microscopy, the growth of single crystals as a function of time ( t ) was monitored at different crystallization temperatures ( T x ). Depending on the end-group chemistry and T x applied, two growth laws were observed, which state that the crystal lateral size r or the crystal volume V can be linearly proportional to t ( r ∝ t or V ∝ t ). Combined with morphological observations of the single crystals, it could be deduced that when r ∝ t, the crystal growth was nucleation-limited (NL), while in the case of V ∝ t, and thus r ∝ t 0.5 at constant crystal thickness, the crystal growth was diffusion-limited (DL). A change of the crystal growth mechanism from the NL to the DL process was also observed with decreasing T x in the MHPEO sample.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".