MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151509098 · doi:10.1002/vnl.10340

Role of processing aids in the extrusion of molten polymers

2002· article· en· W2151509098 on OpenAlexaff
Evdokia C. Achilleos, Georgios C. Georgiou, Savvas G. Hatzikiriakos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vinyl and Additive Technology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicRheology and Fluid Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtrusionBoron nitridePolymerMaterials scienceProcess engineeringPlastics extrusionQuality (philosophy)Process (computing)Product (mathematics)Material flowProduction (economics)Computer scienceNanotechnologyComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Product quality and, in general, processing windows and rates of production in the extrusion of molten polymers are limited by various flow instabilities (mainly melt fracture) that are observed at high production rates. While there still are unresolved issues in comprehending these phenomena, industry demands for process optimization dictate the employment of processing aids (PAs) for product quality improvement and energy requirement reduction. In this review paper, most commercially used processing aids (PAs) are discussed, namely, fluoroelastomers, stearates, small amounts of polymers blended with the process polymer, and the newly discovered boron nitride as pure and in combination with other fluoroelastomers. This paper focuses on the appropriate and optimum usage of the various PAs as well as on the mechanism that underlies their action for flow enhancement and instability elimination. Finally, numerous experimental observations are discussed, and several examples are illustrated.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations101
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vinyl and Additive TechnologySame topicRheology and Fluid Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207