MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071261372 · doi:10.1002/marc.200600179

Chain Orientation in Polyethylene Fibers Prepared by Ethylene Nanoextrusion Polymerization

2006· article· en· W2071261372 on OpenAlexaff
Zhibin Ye, Shiping Zhu, James F. Britten

Bibliographic record

VenueMacromolecular Rapid Communications · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting Materials
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrofiberMaterials scienceComposite materialFiberDiffractionPolyethylenePolymerizationSynthetic fiberPolymerOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Summary: Ethylene nanoextrusion polymerization has been demonstrated to be a novel nanofabrication concept for the preparation of polyethylene (PE) fibers directly from ethylene monomers without any post‐processing procedures. For PE fibers, chain orientation is a critical parameter that affects performance and application of the fibrous materials. In this communication, we report an investigation on chain orientation in PE fibrous samples prepared through nanoextrusion polymerization using a two‐dimensional wide angle X‐ray diffraction (2D WAXRD) technique. Two types of fibrous samples, including individual microfibers and microfiber aggregates, were sampled randomly and studied. For individual PE microfibers, anisotropic diffraction patterns were observed, suggesting chain orientation along the microfiber axial direction. Some microfibers showed the most desired diffraction pattern often found in high‐modulus high‐strength PE fibers. These samples possessed a very high degree of chain orientation along the fiber axis. Owing to a random aggregation of anisotropic microfibers, microfiber aggregates exhibited isotropic diffraction patterns. This work provided further experimental evidence for the proposed nanoextrusion polymerization concept. 2D WAXRD diffraction pattern of a PE microfiber. magnified image 2D WAXRD diffraction pattern of a PE microfiber.

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 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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacromolecular Rapid CommunicationsSame topicAdvanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting MaterialsFrench-language works237,207