Single‐ and two‐step procedures of <scp>AGET</scp> emulsion <scp>ATRP</scp> of methyl methacrylate in a well‐mixed batch reactor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This study investigates the atom transfer radical emulsion polymerization of methyl methacrylate in a 2 L well‐mixed stirred batch reactor using activators generated by electron transfer as the initiation technique. The polymerization was carried out with ethyl‐2‐bromoisobutyrate as the initiator, copper bromide with 4,4′‐di‐5‐nonyl‐2,2′‐bipyridine as the catalyst system, Brij 98 as the surfactant, and ascorbic acid as the reducing agent. The reaction was carried out at constant temperature in the range of 50 to 70 °C under a blanket of nitrogen to minimize the presence of air in the system. Polymerizations were carried out according to single‐step and two‐step procedures. The coagulation was found to be a major problem, especially at high monomer conversion. However, adding more surfactant and lowering the reaction temperature weakened the effect of the coagulation but at the expense of the low monomer conversion. Measurement of molecular weight distribution and Đ using gel permeation show that the two‐step techniques produced polymers with living features of atom transfer radical emulsion polymerization much better than those in the single‐step procedure. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2017 , 134 , 45308.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".