Polystyrene foams. I. Processing‐structure relationships
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, processing‐structure relationships in expanded polystyrene (EPS) made using near‐critical carbon dioxide as a physical blowing agent were investigated. In order to investigate the relationship between structure and properties of EPS it was necessary to be able to make samples with a wide range of controlled structures. For this reason, a systematic investigation of the relationship between processing conditions and structure was performed based on a statistical experimental design. Regression analysis was conducted on the data and expressions were developed to quantify the relationships between structural parameters and processing conditions. The samples were saturated with carbon dioxide at relatively high pressure and ambient temperature and the saturated specimens were expanded at elevated temperatures. The importance of the individual processing parameters was determined. Statistical analysis of data showed that foaming time was the most important factor determining foam density, whereas saturation pressure was the most important factor determining cell size and cell density. By controlling the foaming conditions, EPS samples having the same densities and different cell sizes were produced. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 90: 1412–1420, 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it