MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054983733 · doi:10.1115/imece2006-15212

Effect of Processing Parameters on the Cellular Morphology and Mechanical Properties of Thermoplastic Polyolefin (TPO) Microcellular Foams

2006· article· en· W2054983733 on OpenAlexaff
Steven Wong, Hani E. Naguib, Chul B. Park

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Foaming and Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials sciencePolyolefinComposite materialUltimate tensile strengthMicrostructureElongationThermoplasticElastic modulusPolypropyleneModulusCell sizeMorphology (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, the effects of processing parameters on the cellular morphologies and mechanical properties of TPO70 (Thermoplastic Polyolefin) microcellular foams are investigated. Microcellular closed cell TPO70 foams were prepared using a two-stage batch process method. The microstructure of these foamed samples was controlled by carefully altering the processing parameters such as saturation pressure, foaming temperature and foaming time. The foam morphologies were characterized in terms of the cell density, foam density and average cell size. Elastic modulus, tensile strength, and elongation at break of the foamed TPO70 samples were measured for different cell morphologies. The findings show that the mechanical properties were significantly affected by the foaming parameters which varied with the cell morphologies. The experimental results can be used to predict the microstructure and mechanical properties of microcellular polymeric TPO70 foams prepared with different processing parameters.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPolymer Foaming and CompositesFrench-language works237,207