Sharkskin and oscillating melt fracture: Why in slit and capillary dies and not in annular dies?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The sharkskin and stick‐slip polymer extrusion instabilities are studied primarily as functions of the type of die geometry. Experimental observations concerning the flow curves, the critical wall shear stress for the onset of the instabilities, the pressure and flow rate oscillations, and the effects of geometry and operating conditions are presented for linear low‐density polyethylenes. It is found that sharkskin and stick‐slip instabilities are present in the capillary and slit extrusion. However, annular extrusion stick‐slip and sharkskin are absent at high ratios of the inside‐to‐outside diameter of the annular die. This observation also explains the absence of these phenomena in other polymer processing operations such as film blowing. These phenomena are explained in terms of the surface‐to‐volume ratio of the extrudates, that is, if this ratio is high, sharkskin and stick‐slip are absent. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 2008. © 2007 Society of Plastics Engineers
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".