MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045697636 · doi:10.1002/app.12806

Polystyrene foams. III. Structure–tensile properties relationships

2003· article· en· W2045697636 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Polymer Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Foaming and Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltimate tensile strengthMaterials sciencePolystyreneComposite materialModulusExpanded polystyreneYoung's modulusMicrostructurePolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the previous two parts of this series of articles, the relations among the foaming conditions, microstructure, and impact properties of expanded microcellular polystyrene (EPS) were discussed. In this article, the effects of the foaming conditions and structure on the tensile properties of EPS were investigated. A systematic investigation was performed based on a statistical experimental design. Various processing conditions were used and a wide range of cellular structures was developed. Regression analysis was conducted on the data and expressions were developed to quantify the relationship between the tensile properties and the cellular structure. Foaming time and foaming temperature were the most important processing parameters influencing the tensile modulus and strength. The tensile modulus and strength increased with an increasing foam density, but they decreased slightly when the cell size increased. Two different approaches were used to develop models relating the modulus to the foam density of EPS. Both models fitted the experimental data quite well. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 90: 1427–1434, 2003

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.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.196 · 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