MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087526867 · doi:10.1002/pen.20099

Melt compounding of different grades of polystyrene with organoclay. Part 2: Rheological properties

2004· article· en· W2087526867 on OpenAlexaff
Shuichi Tanoue, Leszek A. Utracki, A. García‐Rejón, P. Sammut, Minh‐Tan Ton‐That, I. Pesneau, Musa R. Kamal, Jørgen Lyngaae‐Jørgensen

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymer Engineering and Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Nanocomposites and Properties
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrganoclayMaterials scienceRheologyPolystyreneComposite materialViscoelasticityDynamic mechanical analysisExtensional viscosityDispersion (optics)CompoundingRheometryViscosityDynamic modulusNanocompositePolymerShear viscosity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Polystyrene‐based nanocomposites (PNC) were prepared using three grades of polystyrene (different molecular weights). The resin was melt‐compounded with 0 to 10 wt% of commercial organoclay in a co‐rotating twin‐screw extruder. Owing to thermo‐oxidative degradation the degree of dispersion was poor. The rheological properties of PNC were determined under dynamic and steady state shear as well as under extensional flow conditions. At the higher clay content, dynamic strain sweep demonstrated that the storage and loss moduli decrease continuously with an increase of strain. To characterize this nonlinear viscoelastic behavior, the Fourier‐transform rheology was applied. The low strain frequency sweep showed that the storage and loss moduli increase with organoclay content. The extracted zero‐shear viscosity data were used to calculate the intrinsic viscosity and then the aspect ratio of dispersions. In spite of nonlinear viscoelastic behavior, the time‐temperature superposition was observed in the full range of concentration. The horizontal and vertical shift factors were found to be almost independent of organoclay content and molecular weight of PS. For comparison, PNC was also prepared by the solution method. A high degree of dispersion was obtained, reflected in the aspect ratio: p = 269, to be compared with p = 16 calculated for the melt‐compounded PNC. Polym. Eng. Sci. 44:1061–1076, 2004. © 2004 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations53
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymer Engineering and ScienceSame topicPolymer Nanocomposites and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207