Thermogravimetric characterization of ex situ polymethacrylate (EDMA‐co‐GMA) monoliths
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The thermo‐molecular mechanisms associated with free radical synthesis of polymethacrylate monoliths offer an effective pathway to tune their pore characteristics. In this work, thermogravimetric analyses were used for ex situ characterization of polymethacrylate monoliths synthesised from ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EDMA) and glycidyl methacrylate (GMA). Apparent activation energies of the polymeric monoliths were determined by using Ozawa‐Flynn‐Wall (OFW) and Kissinger‐Akahira‐Sunose (KAS) isoconversional methods. The number of degradation stages for the polymers were observed to be as follows: homopolymeric GMA and EDMA (2 degradation stages each) and polymeric EDMA‐co‐GMA monoliths (3 degradation stages). The relationship between apparent activation energy and extent of conversion showed that the degradation of monoliths is based on a complex multi‐step reaction rather than a single reaction model. Kinetic parameters showed that an increase in the composition of EDMA and GMA above 20 % significantly enhances the thermal stability of polymeric EDMA‐co‐GMA monoliths under elevated non‐isothermal conditions. E40/G60 and E60/G40 monoliths were identified as the most thermally stable monoliths from the kinetic analyses.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".