MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985621042 · doi:10.1002/app.20127

Visualization of poly(ether imide) and polycarbonate blending in an internal mixer

2004· article· en· W1985621042 on OpenAlexaff
Bin Lin, Uttandaraman Sundararaj

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Polymer Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer crystallization and properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolycarbonateMaterials scienceComposite materialPolymer chemistrySoftening pointParticle sizeImideChemical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The blending process of poly(ether imide)/polycarbonate (PEI/PC) was studied by visualization of blending in an internal mixer at 340°C. Distinct pellet deforming, softening, aggregation, stretching, bending, sheeting, and dispersing were seen during the blending process. By ramping the temperature of the barrel of the internal mixer, the process of pellet softening and deforming, and the phase‐inversion phenomenon were studied by examining the visualization results and the torque readings. It was found that a peak in torque occurred at the phase‐inversion point. It was also found that the blends are semitransparent at higher PEI composition (>80 wt %). SEM and TEM micrographs and DSC data verified the visualization result that PEI/PC blends are partially miscible at higher PEI compositions. The number‐average particle size was determined for the PEI/PC blends and it was found that the experimental results in the dilute solution limit for both PC drops and PEI drops did not match with the particle size predicted by Taylor's theory. The particle sizes at 15 wt % concentration were of the same order of magnitude as those calculated using Wu's correlation. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 92: 1165–1175, 2004

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations13
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Polymer ScienceSame topicPolymer crystallization and propertiesFrench-language works237,207