MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156995898 · doi:10.1002/app.12555

Simulation of continuous solid‐phase polymerization of nylon 6,6. III. Simplified model

2003· article· en· W2156995898 on OpenAlexaff
K. Zhen Yao, Kimberley B. McAuley, E. Keith Marchildon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Polymer Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer crystallization and properties
Canadian institutionsDuPont (Canada)Queen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolymerMass transferPolymerizationMaterials scienceThermodynamicsHeat transferMechanicsPhase (matter)Partial differential equationPolymer chemistryPhysicsMathematicsComposite materialMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Solid‐phase polymerization (SPP) reactors are used to increase the degree of polymerization (DP) during nylon 6,6 production. In previous articles, a reactor model with partial differential equations (PDEs) in time and two spatial dimensions was developed to describe dynamic changes in polymer property profiles (DP, temperature, and moisture content) over the height of the reactor and within the polymer particles. In the current article, a simplified model is developed by deriving appropriate expressions for heat‐ and mass‐transfer coefficients and performing a lumped heat‐ and mass‐transfer analysis. Using this approach, the radial dimension is removed from the PDEs, so that the effort required to solve the model equations is substantially reduced. Predictions of the complex and simplified models are compared through simulation of two different start‐up processes. Good agreement between simplified and complex models is obtained, indicating that the simplified model can be used in place of the complex model if the polymer properties profiles within individual particles are not of particular concern to the model user. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 89: 3701–3712, 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 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)0.001
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 score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations22
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Polymer ScienceSame topicPolymer crystallization and propertiesFrench-language works237,207