MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132027093 · doi:10.1002/aic.690491014

Correlating polymer resin and end‐use properties to molecular‐weight distribution

2003· article· en· W2132027093 on OpenAlexafffund
Mark Hinchliffe, G.A. Montague, Mark J. Willis, Annette L. Burke

Bibliographic record

VenueAIChE Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsNova Chemicals (Canada)
FundersNOVA Chemicals
KeywordsMolar mass distributionPolymerPolymer scienceDistribution (mathematics)Materials sciencePolymer chemistryChemical engineeringChemistryComposite materialMathematicsEngineeringMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The prediction of polymer resin and end‐use properties for a dual‐reactor solution polyethylene process is investigated. Polymer molecular‐weight distribution (MWD) is highly influential in achieving the desired properties, but the extent of the importance and key areas of distribution to achieve specific properties are less well understood. The best empirical approach for resin and end‐use property prediction using the entire MWD along with other influential variables as inputs is investigated. Two modeling methods are considered: partial least squares (PLS) and a novel strategy that uses the weight fraction of polymer in a given molecular‐weight range (referred to as a binning technique). Both linear and nonlinear variants of the two algorithms are used. The intention is to develop a model that facilitates the analysis of the simultaneous influences of process operating conditions and resin characteristics such as MWD on a specified set of end‐use properties. Results demonstrate that the nonlinear variant of the binning technique provides the highest accuracy as well as indicating regions of MWD that are of greatest influence. Such information is particularly useful for the control of the polymerization reactors.

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 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 score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations16
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIChE JournalSame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207