Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A key factor that limits the production rate in film blowing is bubble instability. Although processing conditions play an important role, it is well known that some resins are more resistant to instabilities than others. It is clear that long‐chain branching enhances stability, but it is not currently possible to model the process with sufficient accuracy to establish a quantitative relationship between rheological properties and blown film processability. It would thus be useful to be able to compare the processabilities of film resins by means of a laboratory measurement. We compared two laboratory tests that may be helpful in evaluating the ability of a resin to resist instabilities in the film blowing process. One of these was a film resin tester designed to simulate some aspects of the film blowing process, and the other was an extensional rheometer. We used a set of polyethylene resins that had been used previously in an extensive study of blown film stability. The extensional rheometer clearly shows the superiority of low‐density polyethylene but is not able to distinguish among polymers of other types. The melt tester, on the other hand, is sensitive to differences among linear polymers. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 2009. © 2009 Society of Plastics Engineers
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".