Synthesis of arborescent polystyrene by “click” grafting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT A method was developed for the synthesis of arborescent polystyrene by “click” coupling. Acetylene functionalities were introduced on linear polystyrene ( M n = 5300 g/mol, M w / M n = 1.05) by acetylation and reaction with potassium hydroxide, 18‐crown‐6 and propargyl bromide in toluene. Polymerization of styrene with 6‐tert‐butyldimethylsiloxyhexyllithium yielded polystyrene ( M n = 5200 g/mol, M w / M n = 1.09) with a protected hydroxyl chain end. Deprotection, followed by conversions to tosyl and azide functionalities, provided the side chain material. Coupling with CuBr and N,N,N′,N″,N″‐pentamethyldiethylenetriamine proceeded in up to 94% yield. Repetition of the grafting cycles led to well‐defined ( M w / M n ≤ 1.1) polymers of generations G1 and G2 in 84% and 60% yield, respectively, with M n and branching functionalities reaching 2.8 × 10 6 g/mol and 460, respectively, for the G2 polymer. Coupling longer ( M n = 45,000 g/mol) side chains with acetylene‐functionalized substrates was also examined. For a linear substrate, a G0 polymer with M n = 4.6 × 10 5 g/mol and M w / M n = 1.10 was obtained in 87% yield; coupling with the G0 ( M n = 52,000 g/mol) substrate produced a G1 polymer ( M n = 1.4×10 6 g/mol, M w / M n = 1.38) in 28% yield. The complementary approach using azide‐functionalized substrates and acetylene‐terminated side chains was also investigated, but proceeded in lower yield. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. 2019, 57, 1730–1740
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".