MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045709864 · doi:10.1002/polb.21362

Transient entanglements and clusters in dilute polymer solutions

2007· article· en· W2045709864 on OpenAlexaff
F. Bednár, M. H. Oliveira, Jean Paris, Theo G. M. van de Ven

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Polymer Science Part B Polymer Physics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicRheology and Fluid Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmylopectinPolymerDrop (telecommunication)AmyloseDissolutionStarchPolymer chemistryPressure dropCapillary actionChemical engineeringChemistryMaterials scienceComposite materialThermodynamicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A convenient method to monitor polymer dissolution is to measure the pressure drop created by passing a polymer solution through a capillary constriction rheometer. In this work, we studied the dissolution of polyethylene oxide (PEO) and cationic starch (C‐starch). We found that for freshly dissolved and entangled PEO, the main contribution to the overall pressure drop is due to the contraction and expansion of PEO entanglements at the entrance and exit of the capillary, and that the friction in the capillary plays a minor role. On the other hand, for well‐dissolved PEO, because of the absence of PEO entanglements, the loss of pressure is mainly due to friction. At high velocities the contraction and expansion coefficient for freshly dissolved PEO was more than 20 times higher than for well‐dissolved PEO, resulting in a three times higher overall pressure drop. C‐starch consists of amylopectin (∼ 85%) and amylose and is known to contain clusters when freshly dissolved, likely formed from the globular amylopectin molecules. For C‐starch, the main contribution to the overall pressure drop is due to friction. Entrance and exit effects contribute only 10% to the overall pressure drop, which might be due to the linear amylose molecules in C‐starch. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Polym Sci Part B: Polym Phys 46: 253–262, 2008

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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Polymer Science Part B Polymer PhysicsSame topicRheology and Fluid Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207