Study on squeezing flow during nonisothermal embossing of polymer microstructures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A numerical simulation of the hot embossing process with nonisothermal embossing conditions was carried out to observe the flow pattern of poly (methyl methacrylate) into microcavities. The microcavity was isomorphically downsized. The ratio of the cavity width over the cavity thickness was maintained constant at 8:1 throughout the analysis, while the cavity thickness varied from 200 μm to 0.5 μm. It was found that as the microcavity was downsized, the filling mechanism varied. For larger cavity thicknesses (e.g., 100 μm), the polymer flow climbed along the wall of the heated die and was then compressed downward and squeezed outward. In contrast, for a smaller cavity thickness (e.g., 5 μm), the flow was uniform and the wall‐climbing flow was absent. This size effect was correlated with the uniformity (UNF) of the temperature distribution of the polymer substrate during the embossing process. For larger cavity thicknesses, the high temperature zone was localized in the vicinity of the die wall, and consequently localized wall‐climbing flow occurred. The size effect in nonisothermal embossing was also studied experimentally, and localized flow was observed for larger cavities but not for smaller cavities. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 45:652–660, 2005. © 2005 Society of Plastics Engineers
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".