Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Using small molecules in polymer matrices is common in applications such as (i) plasticizing polymers to modify the glass transition and mechanical properties and (ii) dispersion of photoactive or electroactive small molecules in polymer matrices in organic‐electronic devices Aggregation of these small molecules and phase separation leading to crystallization often cannot be morphologically controlled. If these are designed with self‐assembling codes such as hydrogen bonding or aromatic interactions, their phase separation behavior would be distinctly different. This review summarizes the studies on morphologies in such situations, such as (i) sub‐surface assembly in polymer matrices, (ii) controlled polymerization‐induced phase separation to create polymer blends, (iii) using the polymer to direct the assembly of small molecules in liquid crystalline devices, (iv) functionalizing a polymer with self‐assembling small molecules to cause organo‐gelation which the polymer itself would not by itself, and (v) using such systems as templates to create porous polymer structures. Organic–inorganic hybrids using polymers as templates for nanostructures and imprinted porous membranes is an emerging area. Since self‐assembly is one of the dominating area of research with respect to both small molecules, polymers as well as the combination of the two, this review summarizes the studies on the aforementioned topics. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Polym. Sci., Part B: Polym. Phys. 2018 , 56 , 451–478
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it