MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977238778 · doi:10.1002/app.28482

A study on the onset surface melt fracture of polypropylene materials with foaming additives

2008· article· en· W1977238778 on OpenAlexaff
Hani E. Naguib, Chul B. Park

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Polymer Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Foaming and Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolypropyleneMaterials scienceComposite materialBranching (polymer chemistry)TalcShear (geology)Blowing agentPolyurethane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The melt fracture behaviors of linear and branched polypropylene resins with foaming additives were investigated. The effects of branching, processing temperature, additives, and blowing agent on the surface melt fracture of polypropylene materials were thoroughly studied. A CCD camera was installed at the die exit to precisely observe the onset of surface melt fracture of extruded foams. The critical wall shear stress was determined for various linear and branched polypropylene resins using a capillary die. It was found that the branching required to foam polypropylene resins also promotes melt fracture: the critical shear stress was decreased by 0.0175 MPa with an increase of 0.1 n/1000c in long‐chain branching. It was also observed that the dissolved blowing agent (butane) significantly suppressed the melt fracture of both linear and branched polypropylene resins. On the other hand, a noticeable increase in the critical shear stress of branched polypropylene materials was observed with the nucleating agent (talc) and the aging modifier (glycerol mono stearate), whereas almost negligible effect of the additives on the critical shear stress was observed for linear polypropylene materials. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2008

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)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Polymer ScienceSame topicPolymer Foaming and CompositesFrench-language works237,207