Synthesis and properties of novel soluble poly(amide‐imide)s with different pendant substituents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Two types of novel fluorinated diimide‐diacid monomers—[2,2′‐(4,4′‐(3′‐methylbiphenyl‐2,5‐diyl)bis(oxy)bis(3‐(trifluoromethyl)‐4,1‐phenylene))bis(1,3‐dioxoisoindoline‐5‐carboxylic acid)] (III) and [2,2′‐(4,4′‐(3′‐(trifluoromethyl)biphenyl‐2,5‐diyl)bis(oxy)bis(3‐(trifluoromethyl)‐4,1‐phenylene))bis(1,3‐dioxoisoindoline‐5‐carboxylic acid)] (IV)—were respectively designed and prepared by the condensation of diamines I and II with two molar equivalents of trimellitic anhydride. From both diimide‐diacids, two series of novel poly(amide‐imide)s (PAIs) (IIIa–IIIe and IVa–IVe) bearing different pendant groups were prepared by direct polymerization with various aromatic diamines (a–e). All the PAIs had a high glass transition temperatures (Tgs, 232–265 °C), excellent thermal stability (exhibiting only 5% weight loss at 493–542 °C under nitrogen) and good solubility in various organic solvents due to the introduction of the bulky pendant groups. The cast films of these PAIs (80–90 μm) had good optical transparency (73–81% at 450 nm, 85–88% at 550 nm and 87–89% at 800 nm) and low dielectric constants (2.65–2.98 at 1 MHz). The spin‐coated films of these PAIs presented a minimum birefringence value as low as 0.0077–0.0143 at 650 nm and low optical absorption at the near‐infrared optical communication wavelengths of 1310 and 1550 nm. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. 2017, 55, 3243–3252
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".