MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770050430 · doi:10.1002/marc.201700554

Self‐Assembly and Surface Patterning of Polyferrocenylsilane‐Functionalized Gold Nanoparticles

2017· article· en· W2770050430 on OpenAlexafffund
Rachelle M. Choueiri, Anna Klinkova, Samuel Pearce, Ian Manners, Eugenia Kumacheva

Bibliographic record

VenueMacromolecular Rapid Communications · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPickering emulsions and particle stabilization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPolymerSelf-assemblyNanotechnologyMaterials scienceNanoparticleNanostructureColloidal goldSurface modificationSolventElectrochemistryChemical engineeringChemistryElectrodeOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chemical and topographic surface patterning of inorganic polymer-functionalized nanoparticles (NPs) and their self-assembly in nanostructures with controllable architectures enable the design of new NP-based materials. Capping of NPs with inorganic polymer ligands, such as metallopolymers, can lead to new synergetic properties of individual NPs or their assemblies, and enhance NP processing in functional materials. Here, for gold NPs functionalized with polyferrocenylsilane, two distinct triggers are used to induce attraction between the polymer ligands and achieve NP self-assembly or topographic surface patterning of individual polymer-capped NPs. Control of polymer-solvent interactions is achieved by either changing the solvent composition or by the electrooxidation of polyferrocenylsilane ligands. These results expand the range of polymer ligands used for NP assembly and patterning, and can be used to explore new self-assembly modalities. The utilization of electrochemical polymer oxidation stimuli at easily accessible potentials broadens the range of stimuli leading to NP self-assembly and patterning.

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 score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations24
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacromolecular Rapid CommunicationsSame topicPickering emulsions and particle stabilizationFrench-language works237,207