MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161949554 · doi:10.1002/pen.21385

Microcellular extrusion‐foaming of polylactide with chain‐extender

2009· article· en· W2161949554 on OpenAlexafffund
Srikanth Pilla, Seong G. Kim, George K. Auer, Shaoqin Gong, Chul B. Park

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymer Engineering and Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Foaming and Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsTalcExtenderCrystallinityMaterials scienceExtrusionCrystallizationExpansion ratioComposite materialVolume (thermodynamics)PolypropyleneReactive extrusionPolymer chemistryChemical engineeringPolyurethane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The effects of adding epoxy‐functionalized chain‐extender (CE) and processing conditions such as die temperature on the cell morphology, volume expansion ratio (VER), open cell content (OCC), and crystallization of microcellular extruded polylactide (PLA) were investigated. When compared with pure PLA, the addition of talc decreased the average cell size and increased the cell density. Moreover, the simultaneous addition of talc and CE led to denser and more uniform cell structure up until 1.0% CE content. In general, the volume expansion ratio and open cell content of all the formulations decreased with the die temperature. The addition of talc decreased both VER and OCC, whereas the addition of CE increased both. The die temperature did not affect the degree of crystallinity significantly. The addition of talc increased the crystallinity, but the addition of CE decreased it. Finally, the molecular weight of PLA increased significantly with the addition of CE. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 2009. © 2009 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)0.000
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 score0.000
Threshold uncertainty score0.001

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations155
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymer Engineering and ScienceSame topicPolymer Foaming and CompositesFrench-language works237,207