MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2518779284 · doi:10.1177/026248930202100501

Foam Extrusion of Polystyrene Blown with HFC-134a

2002· article· en· W2518779284 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Gendron, Michel A. Huneault, J. Tatibouët, Caroline Vachon

Bibliographic record

VenueCellular Polymers · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Foaming and Composites
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlowing agentExtrusionPolystyreneMaterials sciencePlastics extrusionSolubilityPlasticizerDissolutionExpanded polystyreneComposite materialChemical engineeringPolymerOrganic chemistryPolyurethaneChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is much interest in developing industrial processes to manufacture extruded polystyrene foam that do not involve ozone depleting blowing agents. A popular alternate candidate is HFC-134a. It has a zero ozone depletion factor and is nearer in chemical structure to standard blowing agents (CFC-22 and HCFC-142b) than carbon dioxide. Although exhibiting main good features, HFC-134a is not used widely as a blowing agent as low foam density is not readily achieved and extruder operation is difficult. A review of past and on-going works on the use of HFC-134 will be addressed first. Then attention will be paid mainly on some processing aspects, with emphasis on the plasticization behavior of polystyrene (PS) by HFC-134a and the effect of screw design on dynamic dissolution of HFC-134a in PS during foam extrusion. Solubility efficiency during extrusion processing has been assessed for different screw configurations by an in-line ultrasonic technique. These results have also been correlated to off-line solubility and diffusivity properties.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations22
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCellular PolymersSame topicPolymer Foaming and CompositesFrench-language works237,207