From polymer blends to <i>in situ</i> polymer/polymer composites: Morphology control and mechanical properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In situ polymer/polymer short fiber composites were generated by a two‐step process. In the first step, a polyamide (PA) dispersed phase is blended with a polypropylene (PP) matrix in a twin‐screw extruder at a temperature at which both polymers are in molten state. The extrudate was then stretched at the die exit to generate long and thin fibers of PA in the PP matrix well oriented in the direction of flow. Adhesion between the phases was promoted by addition of PP grafted with maleic anhydride (PP‐g‐MA). During the second step, the chopped extrudates were molded by injection or compression molding at a temperature at which PA in the form of fibers is in the solid state and the PP matrix is molten. The control of the formation of such ultrafine fibers was obtained by quantitative analyses for the deformation of the minor PA‐phase during twin‐screw extrusion and stretching at the exit of the die that involve both shear and extensional flows. Morphology and mechanical properties of such polymer/polymer composites were compared to equivalent blends with dispersed spherical particles‐type morphology prepared in a batch mixer device.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".