MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992896599 · doi:10.1177/8756087910369423

Effect of Machine Direction Orientation Conditions On Properties of Hdpe Films

2009· article· en· W1992896599 on OpenAlexafffund
Seyed H. Tabatabaei, L. Parent, Patrick Cigana, Abdellah Ajji, Pierre J. Carreau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Plastic Film & Sheeting · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer crystallization and properties
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersRoyal Society of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsCrystallinityMaterials scienceComposite materialDifferential scanning calorimetryAnnealing (glass)High-density polyethyleneModulusExtrusionDiffractionPolyethyleneYoung's modulusOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, the effects of machine direction orientation (MDO) conditions on crystalline orientation, morphology, and mechanical performance of a high-density polyethylene film were investigated. The MDO variables studied were feed speed, stretching temperature, draw ratio (DR) as well as annealing temperature. The type of crystals (spherulites or fibrils) and crystallinity of the films were considered using differential scanning calorimetry. The MDO process increased the film crystallinity by 18% and melting temperature (Tm ) by 5°C. The crystalline phase orientation was measured using Fourier transform infrared and wide angle X-ray diffraction. Stretching noticeably increased the crystalline alignment. The Young’s modulus decreased with increasing extrusion temperature and feed speed and enhanced with rising annealing temperature. However, up to DR = 6, the Young’s modulus decreased with draw ratio whereas it increased beyond DR = 6. Upon drawing, the tear resistance along the machine direction decreased significantly, but the puncture resistance along the normal direction increased drastically. Finally, drawing lowered haze for the films dramatically, hence, improved the clarity significantly.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations24
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Plastic Film & SheetingSame topicPolymer crystallization and propertiesFrench-language works237,207