Influence of Solvent Polarity on the Self-Assembly of the Crystalline–Coil Diblock Copolymer Polyferrocenylsilane-<i>b</i>-polyisoprene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many poly(ferrocenyldimethylsilane) (PFS) block copolymers form fiber-like micelles with a semicrystalline core in selective solvents. Solvent effects on micelle formation are not well understood. This paper compares micelle formation for a sample of PFS 50 –PI 1000 (the subscripts refer to the number-average degrees of polymerization) in decane with that in tert -butyl acetate ( t BA), a more polar solvent. When micelle formation is seeded, by adding block copolymer as a concentrated solution in tetrahydrofuran to solutions of micelle fragments, micelle growth was similar in both solvents. Micelles with a narrow length distribution were formed and the length increased in proportion to the amount of polymer added. In contrast, when micelles were prepared by heating a sample of the block copolymer in decane or t BA to 90 °C and allowing the solution to cool, pronounced differences were observed. In decane, micelles with a uniform width (10 nm) and a length on the order of 5 μm formed after 1 h, and grew to about 10 μm after 5 days. In t BA, aliquots taken from solution 1 h after cooling appeared to undergo microphase separation only upon solvent evaporation. Ribbon-like structures were observed after 1 and 5 days aging, but these evolved into fiber-like structures with a uniform 10 nm width and lengths greater than 30 μm after 25 days. These differences observed in the rate of micelle formation likely reflect differences in the nucleation stage of micelle formation. t BA is a better solvent for the PFS block than decane. As a consequence, it appears to take much longer for semicrystalline micelle nuclei to form in t BA. The seeded growth experiments demonstrate that once seed micelles are present, growth occurs similarly in both solvents.
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".