Flow behavior in a corotating twin‐screw extruder of pure polymers and blends: Characterization by fluorescence monitoring technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objective of this work was to investigate the flow behavior of pure polymers and blends, especially miscible polymer/polymer systems, in a corotating twin‐screw extruder (TSE) using an online fluorescence monitoring device. An immiscible blend was also studied for the sake of comparison. The fluorescence signal was obtained by using synthesized fluorescence tracers added to the melt at very low concentrations. These tracers consisted of two styrene‐maleic anhydride copolymers (SMA) labeled with anthracene. The investigated blends were SMA8 (8 wt % of MA in SMA)/polystyrene (PS), SMA14 (14 wt % of MA in SMA)/styrene acrylonitrile copolymer (SAN), and poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA)/ethyl acrylate‐methyl methacrylate copolymer (PMMAEA). The residence time distribution (RTD), the mean residence time (t), the dimensionless variance (σθ2), the Peclet number (Pe) and the fluorescence peak intensity distribution of pure polymers and binary polymer systems were investigated and interpreted in terms of polymers rheological properties. It was observed that polymers presenting higher viscosity or higher pressure showed longer residence time. A difference in behavior was also observed for the RTD of miscible and immiscible blends. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2011
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".