Bibliographic record
Abstract
The defects of sharkskin and melt fracture and some extrusion instabilities have received significant attention in the open literature, and hundreds of publications have appeared and continue to appear in refereed journals and presented in conferences. The extrusion industry is well aware of these, and although reduction or elimination continues to be a problem, there is at least the understanding on how, why and where they originate and which actions or additives are beneficial. There are some other extrusion defects which have received very little attention in the open literature, such as poor optical clarity in transparent films due to local degradation, flow lines and gels. Frequently, these defects are confused with sharkskin/melt fracture and it is difficult to identify them or explain where and why they appear. During the presentation, it will first be explained how such defects can be identified and differentiated from others. Secondly, it is argued that both the material and the equipment design might be responsible. Emphasis will be given to low shear regions where the residence times can be very long. The explanations will be supported by both experimental evidence obtained from industrial installations and computer simulations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".