MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040356596 · doi:10.1002/pen.10116

Continuous extrusion of microcellular polycarbonate

2003· article· en· W2040356596 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Gendron, Louis E. Daigneault

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymer Engineering and Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Foaming and Composites
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlowing agentMaterials sciencePolycarbonateExtrusionSolubilityPentaneComposite materialViscosityPolymerFoaming agentBlow moldingPlastics extrusionChemical engineeringOrganic chemistryPolyurethaneChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Extruded microcellular foams have been obtained from mixtures of polycarbonate (PC) and n‐pentane. Cell diameters were in the range of 2 to 5 μm and the foam densities varied between 400 and 700 kg/m3. Although two types of PC have been investigated, one linear and one branched, the presence of side branchings did not modify the extruded foam characteristics. Use of carbon dioxide as the blowing agent was also attempted, and cell sizes below 10 μm have been successfully obtained. One prerequisite for microcellular foaming was believed to consist in a concentration of the blowing agent close to its limit of solubility as that defined under the actual processing conditions of pressure and temperature. This hypothesis was validated from the observation of extrusion of regular PC foams (intermediate to low densities and cell sizes ranging between 100 μm and 1 mm) using moderate concentrations of blowing agents, and from solubility and viscosity measurements on similar polymer/blowing agent systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations40
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymer Engineering and ScienceSame topicPolymer Foaming and CompositesFrench-language works237,207