MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083967811 · doi:10.1002/adv.20190

An experimental study of single‐screw extrusion of HDPE–wood composites

2010· article· en· W2083967811 on OpenAlexaff
Karen Xiao, Costas Tzoganakis

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Polymer Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooBrampton Civic Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceExtrusionComposite materialHigh-density polyethyleneMetering modePolyethyleneCompression (physics)Plastics extrusionPolymerMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Single‐screw extrusion experiments were carried out to study the extrusion characteristics of HDPE–wood composites. Three screw geometries (A, B, and C) were used, and the effects of screw speed on output, melting, and pressure profile were studied. Screw A had a much higher compression ratio than screws B and C, which directly affected the melting behavior of the polymers. Screws B and C had the same compression ratio; however, screw C had the same metering capacity as screw A. Therefore, by comparing screws B and C, the effect of feed depth on the solid conveying capacity was investigated. It was found that while screw B had higher outputs than both screws A and C as expected, screw C had a much lower output than screw A for highly filled resins even though they had the same metering capacity. For HDPE, screws A and C showed the same output as expected. Further examinations of the pressure profiles and melting profiles from screw extraction experiments confirmed that screw C showed a severely starved solids conveying capacity for wood‐filled resins, which limited the total outputs. Comparing the outputs and pressure generations between theoretical predictions and actual experimental results, it was evident that due to the inaccurate assumption of fully filled channels common in single screw extrusion, both outputs and pressure generations in the extruders were overpredicted. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Adv Polym Techn 29:197–218, 2010; View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary . DOI 10.1002/adv.20190

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Polymer TechnologySame topicNatural Fiber Reinforced CompositesFrench-language works237,207