MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159821781 · doi:10.1002/pc.20455

Effects of polymer molecular weight and filler particle size on flow behavior of wood polymer composites

2008· article· en· W2159821781 on OpenAlexafffund
Velichko Hristov, J. Vlachopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymer Composites · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceDie swellComposite materialMelt flow indexPolyethylenePolymerParticle sizeShear rateParticle (ecology)Filler (materials)RheologyPolystyreneExtrusion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The influence of polymer matrix molecular weight and filler particle size on rheological properties and extrudate distortions of metallocene polyethylene (mPE)/wood flour (WF) composites has been investigated by rotational and capillary rheometers. It was found that at low shear rates smaller filler particles provide higher shear viscosity than the larger sized filler. At high shear rates and WF loadings above 30 wt%, the effect of particle size on the melt flow properties becomes negligible. The relative increase of the storage modulus with decreasing particle size is more pronounced in the case of low molecular weight polymer matrix than that in higher molecular weight polyethylene based composites. The wood filled polyethylenes exhibit extrudate surface defects, which are complex function of the shear rate, polymer matrix molecular weight, and filler particle size. Increasing the shear rate results in pressure oscillations and spurt‐flow. It was also observed that the evolution of the extrudate surface tearing is strongly dependent on the pressure during a single pressure oscillation cycle in the spurt flow regime. POLYM. COMPOS., 2008. © 2008 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 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)0.000
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.214
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations68
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymer CompositesSame topicNatural Fiber Reinforced CompositesFrench-language works237,207