MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087310786 · doi:10.1002/pen.10009

Application of ultrasound in the determination of fundamental extrusion performance: Residence time distribution measurement

2003· article· en· W2087310786 on OpenAlexaff
Zhigang Sun, C.K. Jen, C. K. Shih, D. A. Denelsbeck

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymer Engineering and Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFlow Measurement and Analysis
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResidence time distributionExtrusionPlastics extrusionMaterials scienceUltrasonic sensorLow-density polyethyleneMixing (physics)Die (integrated circuit)Composite materialResidence time (fluid dynamics)AcousticsPolymerFlow (mathematics)MechanicsNanotechnologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract By means of new probe design and rapid data acquisition, we have succeeded in in‐line ultrasonic monitoring of residence time distribution (RTD) at the melting, mixing, and pumping zones as well as at the die exit of a Werner & Pfleiderer 30‐mm twin‐screw extruder by mounting the ultrasonic probes on the extruder barrel over the screw elements and at the die. The experimental systems were LDPE, CaCO3‐filled LDPE, and a Kraton/LDPE blend. The ultrasonic data at each of the extruder functional zones are presented. The ultrasonic results have been used to evaluate an opical RTD measurement method by using an optical sensor side by side with one ultrasonic probe at the mixing zone of the extruder. The comparison of the ultrasonic and optical results has shown that the presented ultrasonic technique could be a good complement to the optical technique in the monitoring and understanding of RTD during polymer extrusion processes.

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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations32
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymer Engineering and ScienceSame topicFlow Measurement and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207