MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091204900 · doi:10.1002/pen.10073

Erosion and breakup of polymer drops under simple shear in high viscosity ratio systems

2003· article· en· W2091204900 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymer Engineering and Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer crystallization and properties
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreakupMaterials scienceDrop (telecommunication)Shear rateNewtonian fluidPolymerCapillary actionShear flowSimple shearComposite materialCapillary numberMechanicsViscosityShear (geology)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The deformation and breakup of a single polycarbonate (PC) drop in a polyethylene (PE) matrix were studied at high temperatures under simple shear flow using a specially designed transparent Couette device. Two main breakup modes were observed: (a) erosion from the surface of the drop in the form of thin ribbons and streams of droplets and (b) drop elogation and drop breakup along the axis perpendicular to the velocity direction. This is the first time drop breakup mechanism (a), “erosion,” has been visualized in polymer systems. The breakup occurs even when the viscosity ratio (η r ) is greater than 3.5. although it has been reported that breakup is impossible at these high viscosity ratios in Newtonian systems. The breakup of a polymer drop in a polymer matrix cannot be described by Capillary number and viscosity ratio only; it is also controlled by shear rate, temperature, elasticity and other polymer blending parameters. A pseudo first order decay model was used to describe the erosion phenomenon and it fits the experimental data well.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.198 · 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