MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122721231 · doi:10.1122/1.2964199

Wall slip and spurt flow of polybutadiene

2008· article· en· W2122721231 on OpenAlexaff
Hee Eon Park, Sung Taek Lim, Fabricio Smillo, John M. Dealy, Christopher G. Robertson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Rheology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicRheology and Fluid Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMechanicsMaterials scienceSlip (aerodynamics)RheometerRheometryCapillary actionShear rateShear stressRheologyComposite materialThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spurt occurs in the flow of entangled melts in a capillary rheometer in which the driving pressure is controlled. As the driving pressure increases, at a critical value there is a sudden increase in flow rate, often called spurt. This discontinuity is followed by another regime of smoothly increasing flow rate. A phenomenon that may contribute to this instability is a curve of wall shear stress versus slip velocity that has a maximum followed by a minimum, and there are models that predict such behavior. We used a sliding plate rheometer (SPR) to study wall slip for a highly entangled, linear polybutadiene at 1atm and at 46MPa. By varying the plate speed, we were able to explore the entire curve of shear stress versus slip velocity. This curve exhibited a maximum and a minimum in the stress, providing support for theories predicting this behavior and an explanation for the spurt effect in capillary rheometry. The spurt flow of the same polymer was also observed, and slip velocities were estimated and compared with those determined using the SPR. The slip velocities obtained using the two instruments were in good agreement.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.206
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations64
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of RheologySame topicRheology and Fluid Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207