MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082340786 · doi:10.1002/app.22744

In situ visualization of drop deformation, erosion, and breakup in high viscosity ratio polymeric systems under high shearing stress conditions

2006· article· en· W2082340786 on OpenAlexaff
Frej Mighri, Michel A. Huneault

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Polymer Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer crystallization and properties
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaPolytechnique MontréalUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreakupMaterials scienceDrop (telecommunication)Shearing (physics)Composite materialShear rateShear flowNewtonian fluidRheologyMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, deformation and breakup under simple shear of single molten polymer drops in a polymer matrix were investigated. Flow visualization was carried out in a Couette‐Flow apparatus under relatively high shear rates and temperatures up to 230°C. Drop/Matrix combinations were composed of polystyrene drops of 0.5–0.6 mm in diameter in polyethylene matrix, and ethylene–propylene copolymer drops of approximately the same size in polypropylene matrix. The deformation and breakup processes were studied under steady state and time‐dependent shearing conditions. Either for steady state or time‐dependant shearing conditions, drop elasticity generated at relatively high shear rates helped the drops to align perpendicular to the flow direction, i.e., parallel to vorticity axis. Also, the most striking non‐Newtonian effects for the high viscosity ratio systems were the surface erosion and the drop splitting mechanisms. The particles eroded off the main droplet surface were very fine, in the range of 10–50 μm, and led to a significant reduction in main drop size before its final breakup. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 100: 2582–2591, 2006

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)0.001
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations20
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Polymer ScienceSame topicPolymer crystallization and propertiesFrench-language works237,207