Self‐Assembly of Nonfrustrated ABCBA Linear Pentablock Terpolymers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The effects of compositions, interaction parameters, and number of blocks on the self‐assembly of nonfrustrated ABCBA linear pentablock terpolymer melts are investigated and compared with the corresponding ABC linear triblock terpolymers using the self‐consistent field theory. For the case of symmetric interaction parameters (χABN = χBCN) and majority B‐blocks, both ABC triblocks and ABCBA pentablocks can form intriguing A‐ and C‐domains embedded in the B‐matrix. While these morphologies persist in the ABC systems when the segregation strength is decreased, the A blocks tend to mix with the B blocks in the ABCBA pentablocks due to the chain topology, resulting in the formation of C‐domains embedded in the AB‐mixed matrix. Different phase behavior is observed for the case of asymmetric interaction parameters (χABN < χBCN). Aside from the core–shell type structures, a number of morphologies arise due to the separation between C and AB‐mixed domains in ABCBA pentablock copolymers. The theoretical results not only capture the self‐assembling behavior of poly(isoprene‐b‐styrene‐b‐ethylene oxide‐b‐styrene‐b‐isoprene) pentablocks, but also provide concrete suggestions for designing diverse microstructures in the linear ABC‐type terpolymers.
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".