MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080060316 · doi:10.1002/pen.21062

Modeling and measurement of glass transition temperatures of energetic and inert systems

2008· article· en· W2080060316 on OpenAlexaff
Mounir Jaidann, Hakima Abou‐Rachid, Xavier Lafleur‐Lambert, Louis‐Simon Lussier, Nicole Gagnon, Josée Brisson

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymer Engineering and Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergetic Materials and Combustion
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlass transitionMaterials scienceAdipatePolybutadieneDifferential scanning calorimetryCrystallinityPlasticizerPolymerHydroxyl-terminated polybutadieneThermodynamicsWork (physics)MoleculeInertPolymer chemistryComposite materialCopolymerOrganic chemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this article, measurements of glass transition temperature ( T g ) changes of two energetic material blend systems were carried out using the differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) technique. On one hand, experimental T g values were compared to those predicted by the additivity model, Fox and Pochan equations, and, on other hand, to atomistic molecular dynamics simulation results performed in this work. The two blend systems studied were both composed of a polymer, either the inert hydroxyl‐terminated polybutadiene (HTPB) or the energetic polyglycidylazide (GAP), and smaller molecules, which acted as plasticizers, dioctyl adipate (DOA), or glycidylazide oligomers (Gp1). Modeling results show deviations from experimental data, which varied from 5 to 20 K over an absolute scale for pure components and blends. A good fit was found when predicting the effect of adding smaller molecules to HTPB. Simulations were particularly useful for the blend in which the glass transition temperature of one component, DOA, was not experimentally measurable, due to the high crystallinity of the small DOA molecule. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 2008. © 2008 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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.158 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymer Engineering and ScienceSame topicEnergetic Materials and CombustionFrench-language works237,207