Transient elongational properties of an <i>in situ</i> generated polymer/polymer composite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The elaboration of a n in‐situ composite consisting of ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) and polybutylenetherephtalate (P m was investigated. An inter‐chain chemical reaction during processing operations was used to generate a grafted PBT‐g‐EVA copolymer at the interface of the two polymers. Composites with either nodular or fibrillar morphologies were obtained. Fibrillar morphology was achieved by stretching the extruded blend at the exit of the die. Elongational properties of such composites were investigated by using the fiber wind‐up technique. The influence of the aspect ratio of PBT solid inclusions on the elongational viscosity was discussed for a series of EVA/PBT composites. Clearly, the strain hardening softening properties were found to be strongly affected by the aspect ratio. Increasing the aspect ratio of PBT solid particles made the strain hardening weaker and even gave strain‐softening. This behavior is emphasized by the presence of the grafted PBT‐g‐EVA copolymer. The results suggest that strain‐hardening or softening of such composites is correlated to the homogeneity of the flow at EVA‐PBT interface: the elongational flow is disrupted in the interphase region so that the deformation around the particle is not homogeneous.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".