Kinetic studies of cationic photopolymerizations of cycloaliphatic epoxide, triethyleneglycol methyl vinyl ether, and cyclohexene oxide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The cationic photopolymerizations of monofunctional monomers and cycloaliphatic diepoxide monomer were examined in detail. Phenomenological kinetic models were developed for photopolymerizations of the monofunctional and difunctional monomers. For monofunctional monomers, the nonlinear models gave an excellent fit to the experimental data. Although a second‐order autocatalytic model was shown to be invalid above 10% conversion for the polymerization of a difunctional monomer (3,4‐epoxycyclohexylmethyl‐3′,4′‐epoxycyclohexane carboxylate, ECH), an autocatalytic model using diffusion‐controlled reaction with a Williams‐Landel‐Ferry (WLF) equation fits the experimental data well over the entire conversion range. A mechanistic model based on the free volume theory was also developed for cationic polymerization of the cycloaliphatic di‐epoxide monomer by using the method of moments. The model gives a good fit for the conversion and Mw development, but the calculated Mn results are lower than the experimental values. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 45:1546–1555, 2005. © 2005 Society of Plastics Engineers
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".