MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399782351 · doi:10.1002/chem.202401728

Towards Sustainable Materials: A Review of Acylhydrazone Chemistry for Reversible Polymers

2024· review· en· W4399782351 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Donya Ramimoghadam, Daniel J. Eyckens, Richard A. Evans, Graeme Moad, Susan Holmes, Ranya Simons

Bibliographic record

VenueChemistry - A European Journal · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer composites and self-healing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of CanadaCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
KeywordsPolymerPolymer scienceChemistryNanotechnologyMaterials scienceOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transitioning towards a circular economy, extensive research has focused on dynamic covalent bonds (DCBs) to pave the way for more sustainable materials. These bonds enable debonding and rebonding on demand, as well as facilitating end-of-life recycling. Acylhydrazone/hydrazone chemistry offers a material with high stability under neutral and basic conditions making it a promising candidate for materials research, though the material is susceptible to acid degradation. However, this degradation under acidic conditions can be exploited, making it widely applicable in self-healing and biomedical fields, with potential for reprocessing and recycling. This review highlights studies exploring the reversibility of acylhydrazone/hydrazone bonds in various polymers, altering their properties, and utilizing them in applications such as self-healing, reprocessing, and recycling. The review also focuses on how the mechanical properties are affected by the presence of dynamic linkages, and methods to improve the mechanical performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.305
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations31
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemistry - A European JournalSame topicPolymer composites and self-healingFrench-language works237,207