MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983398406 · doi:10.1002/pen.20134

Experiments and flow analysis of a micropelletizing die

2004· article· en· W1983398406 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael R. Thompson, Cheng Xi, E. Takács, Mitsuru Tate, J. Vlachopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymer Engineering and Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicRheology and Fluid Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaExxon Mobil Corporation
KeywordsMaterials scienceDie (integrated circuit)Composite materialRheologyShear (geology)Isothermal processThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A study has been performed to examine the process of micropelletization on four different polyethylenes with melt index values between 1 and 5 g/10 min. The experiments were done on a 50‐mm 30:1 L/D extruder with an underwater micropelletizer attached. The average micropellet size that was produced ranged from 0.4 to 0.5 mm in diameter depending on whether a plastomer or high‐density grade was selected. The dimensions of the pellets were influenced strongly by the occurrence of die‐hole freeze‐off. Minor sharkskin was observed on the surface of the micropellets, a result of the high stresses experienced in the pelletizer die. A non‐isothermal, axisymmetric flow model was used to assist in the analysis by comparing the observed results to the predicted shear stresses in the die. The calculations revealed that extremely high shear rates were present in the die holes, resulting in a significant degree of wall slip. The measured rheological properties of the micropellets did not show any change in comparison to their virgin resins, likely because of the presence of wall slippage and the short residence time of the polymer in the die holes. Polym. Eng. Sci. 44:1391–1402, 2004. © 2004 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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations10
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymer Engineering and ScienceSame topicRheology and Fluid Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207