LLDPE‐based mono‐ and multilayer blown films: Property enhancement through coextrusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study we investigated the performance of multilayer coextruded linear low‐density polyethylene (LLDPE) blown films. Five‐layer films were compared with monolayer dry‐blended films, and the effects of layer composition and layout on the end‐use properties of the coextruded films were highlighted. Three different LLDPEs were used: a conventional Ziegler‐Natta LLDPE gas phase butene copolymer, an advanced Ziegler‐Natta LLDPE solution octene copolymer, and a single‐site LLDPE solution octene copolymer. Numerous five‐layer coextruded structures comprising the single‐site resin and the other two Ziegler‐Natta resins were produced. The coextruded structures composed of the LLDPE butene and the single‐site resin yielded improved end‐use properties relative to the monolayer‐blended films. This result was ascribed to the presence of interfacial transcrystalline layers. Also, blends of the single‐site LLDPE and the advanced Ziegler‐Natta LLDPE octene resins within selected layers of coextruded films showed slightly enhanced tear resistance. Finally, it was found that haze was significantly reduced when the outside layers were composed of the single‐site resin. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 45:1222–1230, 2005. © 2005 Society of Plastics Engineers
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".