Structure and performance of impact modified and oriented sPS/SEBS blens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Blends of syndiotactic styrene/p‐methyl styrene copolymer (SPMS) and poly (styrene)‐block ‐ploy(ethene‐co‐butylene)‐block‐polystyrene (SEBS) as well as theiruniaxial drwing behavior andd performance were investigated. Mixing was performed using a batch mixer at 280°C. Morphology was evaluted using scanning electron microscopy (SEM).Thermal properties, orientation and tensile properties were determined using differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), the spectrographic birefringence technique, and a tensile testing machine, respectively. The blends of SPMS/SEBS, 90/10 and 80/20 showed a two‐phase structure with an SEBS disperse phase in SPMS matrix. The average sizes of the SEBS paticles and tensile properties of the blends were affected by blending time and compositions. No significant effects on the modulus and strength were observed for the blends containing 10%SEBS or below. The quenched SPMS and SPMS/SEBS (90/10) blends were drawn at 110°C. and their crystallinity and orientation development compared. These were similar for both samples at low draw rations (<3.2), but were much faster for SPMS at higher draw ratios. The orientation process is shown to substantially invrease the strength and modulus in the drawing direction for SPMS and the blends. The toughness (energy under the stress‐strain curve) increased upon addition of SEBS and orientation, with a marked effect of the latter. SEM observation reveals that the dispersed SEBS has been extended to about the same draw ratio as the bulk blend in the drawn blends, indicating effcient stress transfer at the interface.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".