Crystallization behaviors of polypropylene and functional polypropylene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The crystallization behaviors of polypropylene (PP) homopolymer and its blends with 0–15% functional polypropylene (FPP), the backbones of which were grafted with guanidine and diamide polymer chains, were investigated with differential scanning calorimetry and wide‐angle X‐ray scattering. The crystallization kinetics were studied with spectral depolarization. The results revealed that the presence of FPP reduced the crystallinity and crystallite size of PP. Meanwhile, FPP increased the crystallization rate. Compared with that of the PP homopolymer, the crystallization temperature of PP/FPP blends was increased by more than 10°C. During isothermal crystallization, the relative crystallinity, developed as a function of time, was described by the Avrami equation. The half‐time of crystallization for PP/FPP blends was much shorter than that for the PP homopolymer. The half‐time of crystallization of PP/FPP blends depended much less on the crystallization temperature than that of the PP homopolymer. Therefore, FPP accelerated the crystallization rate of PP in a manner similar to that of a nucleator. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 88: 872–877, 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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".