Correlation between different microstructural parameters and tensile modulus of various polyethylene blown films
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objective in this study is to establish a model for the prediction of tensile properties using various types of polyethylene films (LLDPE, HDPE, and LDPE). A series of blown films were produced by varying three process parameters: take‐up ratio, blow‐up ratio, and frost line height. The tensile properties of the resulting films were investigated in relation to their microstructural characteristics. The microstructural parameters were determined by differential scanning calorimetry, wide angle X‐ray diffraction (WAXD) pole figures, SAXS (small angle X‐ray diffraction), and birefringence measurements. The orientation parameters of the films were measured by WAXD and birefringence. They were determined for both crystalline and amorphous phases. The crystalline content, lamellar thickness, and crystal sizes were obtained from DSC and WAXD. The SAXS technique was used to find the average length of the crystalline and amorphous layers. A model for the tensile modulus is proposed and correlated to some structural parameters including crystallinity, orientation factors for crystalline c‐axis and amorphous phase, lamellar thickness, crystal size, the average length of the crystal layer, and long spacing period. The measured modulus and the calculated one were compared and a reasonable agreement was found between them for all series of films. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 47:1430–1440, 2007. © 2007 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".