MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045843496 · doi:10.1002/macp.200300116

Cocrystallization of Blends of Ethylene/1‐Olefin Copolymers: An Investigation with Crystallization Analysis Fractionation (Crystaf)

2004· article· en· W2045843496 on OpenAlex
Siripon Anantawaraskul, João B. P. Soares, Paula M. Wood‐Adams

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

VenueMacromolecular Chemistry and Physics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer crystallization and properties
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversity of WaterlooMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComonomerCopolymerCrystallizationOlefin fiberFractionationEthylenePolymer chemistryMaterials scienceChemical engineeringChemistryOrganic chemistryComposite materialCatalysisPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Summary: Crystallization analysis fractionation (Crystaf) is a technique for estimating the chemical composition distribution (CCD) of semi‐crystalline copolymers. Cocrystallization may happen during Crystaf analysis, affecting Crystaf profiles and leading to misinterpretation of the CCD. This study investigates this phenomenon and determines the main factors leading to cocrystallization by analyzing a series of ethylene/1‐olefin copolymers. We considered three factors affecting cocrystallization: comonomer type, cooling rate and chain crystallizability. The results showed that cooling rate and similarity in chain crystallizability are the key factors regulating cocrystallization during Crystaf analysis. Crystaf analysis of blends of copolymers. magnified image Crystaf analysis of blends of copolymers.

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)0.000
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 score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.211 · 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