MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028783187 · doi:10.1021/ie0400402

Challenge to Extrusion of Low-Density Microcellular Polycarbonate Foams Using Supercritical Carbon Dioxide

2004· article· en· W2028783187 on OpenAlexafffund
John W. S. Lee, Kihyun Wang, Chul B. Park

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Foaming and Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSupercritical fluidPolycarbonateMaterials scienceExpansion ratioSupercritical carbon dioxideDrop (telecommunication)ExtrusionComposite materialNucleationPressure dropBlowing agentThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research investigated the expansion behavior of extruded polycarbonate (PC) foams blown with supercritical (sc) CO 2 to achieve low-density microcellular foams. The expansion behavior of PC foam was interpreted by the amount of gas retained in the cell structure in consideration of cell opening, cell-to-cell diffusion, and melt stiffening. The expansion ratio curve plotted against the die temperature showed a typical mountain shape, confirming our previous results. In addition, because the expansion behaviors and foam properties are strongly dependent on the cell density, the cell nucleation behaviors were also thoroughly investigated. Three filamentary dies were designed to investigate the effects of the die geometry. The pressure-drop rate had some effect on the cell density of PC foams as expected, i.e., a higher pressure-drop rate resulted in a higher cell density of PC foams. A high pressure-drop rate was also favorable for a high expansion ratio. By controlling all of these parameters, an expansion ratio of over 14 with a cell density of over 10 10 cells/cm 3 could be achieved.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations81
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry ResearchSame topicPolymer Foaming and CompositesFrench-language works237,207