Monomer Structure and Solvent Effects on Copolymer Composition in (Meth)acrylate Radical Copolymerization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solvent effects on reactivity ratios ( r i ) and overall composition-averaged copolymer propagation rate coefficients ( k p,cop ) are generally not observed during methacrylic ester radical copolymerization. However, hydroxyl-bearing comonomers, such as 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA), lead to significant deviations from expectation for both r i and k p,cop, an effect that is highly dependent on solvent choice and rooted in hydrogen bond interactions. The current understanding of the influence of hydrogen bonding on organic solution (meth)acrylic ester radical (co)polymerization kinetics is reviewed by summarizing trends in structure/reactivity for methacrylate homopropagation rate coefficients ( k p ) and methacrylate macromonomer relative reactivity during copolymerization. In addition, the peculiarities that characterize the apparent enhanced reactivity of hydroxyl-bearing monomers during copolymerization are outlined. Finally, a modeling framework to systematically capture the effects of solvent and hydrogen bonding on copolymer composition, through specific intramolecular hydrogen bond associations between monomer and growing chain, is presented for several methacrylate, acrylate, and styrene copolymerizations.
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".