MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985916256 · doi:10.1002/pen.20397

LLDPE‐based mono‐ and multilayer blown films: Effect of processing parameters on properties

2005· article· en· W1985916256 on OpenAlexaff
Saïd Elkoun, Michel A. Huneault, K. McCormick, F. Puterbaugh, L. Kale

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymer Engineering and Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer crystallization and properties
Canadian institutionsNova Chemicals (Canada)National Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinear low-density polyethyleneMaterials science1-OcteneOcteneComposite materialIzod impact strength testPolyethyleneCopolymerCrystallizationTear resistanceChemical engineeringPolymerUltimate tensile strength

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this study we investigated the effect of processing parameters on the end‐use properties of mono‐ and five‐layer coextruded polyethylene (PE) blown films using three different linear low‐density PE (LLDPE) resins. The three investigated LLDPEs were a conventional Ziegler‐Natta gas phase ethylene‐butene copolymer, and two solution ethylene‐octene resins produced with Ziegler‐Natta and single‐site catalysts. The octene copolymers were produced using NOVA Chemicals Advanced SCLAIRTECH™ process and catalyst technologies. It was found that within the investigated range of processing conditions, tear strength increased in the direction perpendicular to the highest orientation, impact and puncture strength increased with the overall orientation, and the effect of orientation due to shear stresses in the die was negligible because of rapid macromolecular relaxation before crystallization. Finally, it was also shown that due to changes in the size of the crystallites, haze increased with die gap and frost line height (FLH), and decreased as take‐up speed (TUS) increased. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 45:1214–1221, 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 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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymer Engineering and ScienceSame topicPolymer crystallization and propertiesFrench-language works237,207