MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2600680158 · doi:10.1021/acs.macromol.7b00516

Tailoring Cellulose Nanocrystal and Surfactant Behavior in Miniemulsion Polymerization

2017· article· en· W2600680158 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephanie A. Kedzior, Heera S. Marway, Emily D. Cranston

Bibliographic record

VenueMacromolecules · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvanced Cellulose Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcMaster University
KeywordsMiniemulsionPulmonary surfactantCationic polymerizationPolymerizationChemical engineeringZeta potentialPolymer chemistryHydrophobeMaterials scienceAdsorptionMonomerCounterionColloidPolymerNanoparticleChemistryOrganic chemistryComposite materialNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) combined with surfactants were used to stabilize miniemulsion polymerization reactions. Anionic CNCs with H + and Na + counterions and cationic-modified CNCs were investigated with anionic and cationic surfactants. When oppositely charged CNCs and surfactants were mixed, CNC size increased and absolute zeta-potential decreased, indicating surfactant adsorption and the ability to costabilize the monomer/water interface. Colloid-probe atomic force microscopy showed that surfactant adsorption to CNCs is strongly dependent on the CNC surface charge and counterion. Miniemulsion polymerization of poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) was performed in the presence of CNC–surfactant mixtures; latexes were produced giving PMMA nano particles when there was no interaction between CNCs and surfactant and PMMA micro particles when CNCs and surfactant acted as costabilizers. This shows that CNCs can be used with surfactants to stabilize miniemulsion polymerization, reducing the need for a hydrophobe and leading to latexes with tunable properties (size, size distribution, surface charge, and polymer molecular weight) for coatings, adhesives, and household/personal care products.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations96
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacromoleculesSame topicAdvanced Cellulose Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207