MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200539725 · doi:10.3390/polym13183122

In-Depth Analysis of the Effect of Fragmentation on the Crystallization-Driven Self-Assembly Growth Kinetics of 1D Micelles Studied by Seed Trapping

2021· article· en· W3200539725 on OpenAlexaff
Gérald Guérin, Paul A. Rupar, Mitchell A. Winnik

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymers · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Polymer Synthesis and Characterization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersScience and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality
KeywordsCrystalliteMicelleKineticsPolymerAnnealing (glass)Materials scienceCrystallizationChemical physicsChemical engineeringCopolymerSelf-assemblyFragmentation (computing)Growth rateCrystallographyChemistryNanotechnologyComposite materialPhysical chemistryAqueous solutionPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studying the growth of 1D structures formed by the self-assembly of crystalline-coil block copolymers in solution at elevated temperatures is a challenging task. Like most 1D fibril structures, they fragment and dissolve when the solution is heated, creating a mixture of surviving crystallites and free polymer chains. However, unlike protein fibrils, no new nuclei are formed upon cooling and only the surviving crystallites regrow. Here, we report how trapping these crystallites at elevated temperatures allowed us to study their growth kinetics at different annealing times and for different amounts of unimer added. We developed a model describing the growth kinetics of these crystallites that accounts for fragmentation accompanying the 1D growth process. We show that the growth kinetics follow a stretched exponential law that may be due to polymer fractionation. In addition, by evaluating the micelle growth rate as a function of the concentration of unimer present in solution, we could conclude that the micelle growth occurred in the mononucleation regime.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymersSame topicAdvanced Polymer Synthesis and CharacterizationFrench-language works237,207