MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021871844 · doi:10.1002/adv.21323

Visual Studies of Model Foam Development for Rotational Molding Processes

2012· article· en· W2021871844 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Polymer Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Foaming and Composites
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleationMaterials scienceCoalescence (physics)BubbleMolding (decorative)ShrinkagePolymerBlow moldingComposite materialLiquid bubbleBlowing agentWork (physics)ThermodynamicsMechanicsPolyurethaneMold

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This work explores the foam development process under atmospheric pressure as applicable to rotational molding, investigating the influence of the processing parameters, and characterizing the morphology of the foamed structure. Detailed understanding of the bubble transformation during foaming of nonpressurized polymer melts provided an accurate basis for predicting the morphological structure and macroscopic properties of foams produced by rotational molding. The experimental results are based on visualization studies using a hot stage microscopy setup. The cellular structure developed during the foaming was analyzed for its bubble density, bubble size, and statistical parameters considering the combined effect of these two factors. It was found during this investigation that the foaming mechanism comprises four distinct stages. It included two major stages of bubble nucleation, primary nucleation in interstitial regions, and secondary nucleation in the polymer melt. Statistical analysis of the developing foamed structure revealed that primary nucleation in the interstitial regions was the controlling stage in determining the final cellular structure. Subsequently, the nucleation stages were followed by bubble growth and bubble coalescence/shrinkage. The microscopic observations were complemented by actual rotational foam molding experiments. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Adv Polym Techn 32: E809–E821, 2013; View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com . DOI 10.1002/adv.21323

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.

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 score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.324 · 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