Amorphous orientation and its relationship to processing stages of blended polypropylene/polyethylene fibers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Changes in the molecular orientation, melting behavior, and percent crystallinity of the individual components in a fibrous blend of isotactic polypropylene (iPP) and high‐density polyethylene (HDPE) that occur during the melt extrusion process were examined using wide‐angle X‐ray diffraction (WAXD) and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The crystalline orientation of each component was found using Wilchinsky's treatment of uniaxial orientation and described by the Hermans–Stein orientation parameter. The amorphous orientation was found by resolving the X‐ray diffraction pattern in steps of the azimuthal angle into its iPP and HDPE crystalline and amorphous reflections. The utility of DSC and WAXD analyses to capture the effects of small differences in processing, and the use of these results as fingerprints of a particular manufacturing process were demonstrated. Major increases in the melting temperatures, percent crystallinities, and molecular orientations of the iPP and HDPE components occurred during the main stretching stage of the melt extrusion process. The annealing stage was found to have little to no effect on the melting behavior and molecular orientation of these components. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2008
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".