MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053293376 · doi:10.3139/217.1879

Nozzle Injection of Physical Blowing Agents in the Injection Molding of Microcellular Foams

2005· article· en· W2053293376 on OpenAlex
V. L. Bravo, Andrew N. Hrymak

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

VenueInternational Polymer Processing · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Foaming and Composites
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceNozzleBlowing agentInjectorPressure dropSpark plugMolding (decorative)Composite materialMoldPolymerInjection mouldingPorosityInjection molding machineMechanical engineeringMechanicsEngineeringPolyurethane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Results obtained from the implementation of a physical foaming system for injection molding are presented. The implemented design involves the injection of gas in the upstream side of a special nozzle composed by a static mixing element (SMX type) and a shut-off valve. In order to avoid the formation of large pockets of gas in the injection point, a porous metal plug is used to create a multiple point injection area with 20 lm size pores. Gas injection simultaneously with polymer melt injection gave a consistent foamed material. However, given the total pressure drop in the system of static mixers, runners and mold, there is an inherent operational pressure limitation. The polymer injection pressure needs to be kept at a pressure below the gas injection pressure, therefore limiting the speed at which the polymer can be injected in the mold.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.268 · 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