MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090389677 · doi:10.1002/app.11561

Reactive extrusion of polypropylene with supercritical carbon dioxide: Free radical grafting of maleic anhydride

2002· article· en· W2090389677 on OpenAlexaff
B. M. Dorscht, Costas Tzoganakis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Polymer Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Foaming and Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaleic anhydridePolypropyleneSupercritical carbon dioxideReactive extrusionSupercritical fluidMaterials scienceExtrusionGraftingChemical engineeringPolymer chemistryCarbon dioxidePolymerComposite materialChemistryOrganic chemistryCopolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A reactive extrusion process for the functionalization of polypropylene with maleic anhydride in the presence of supercritical carbon dioxide was studied. Supercritical carbon dioxide was used in this reactive extrusion system to reduce the viscosity of the polypropylene melt phase by forming a polymer–gas solution in order to promote better mixing of the reactants. Subsequently, the effect of supercritical carbon dioxide on the level of grafting, product homogeneity, and molecular weight was evaluated. Analysis of the products revealed that the use of supercritical carbon dioxide led to improved grafting when high levels of maleic anhydride were used. The experimental results showed no evidence of an improvement in the homogeneity of the product, while melt flow rate measurements showed a reduction in the degradation of polypropylene during the grafting reaction when low levels of maleic anhydride were employed. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 87: 1116–1122, 2003

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.213
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations41
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Polymer ScienceSame topicPolymer Foaming and CompositesFrench-language works237,207