Modelling of Rod-Like Fillers’ Rotation and Translation near Two Growing Cells in Conductive Polymer Composite Foam Processing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We developed a simple analytical model to describe the instantaneous location and angle of rod-like conductive fillers as a function of cell growth during the foaming of conductive polymer composites (CPCs). First, we modelled the motion of the fillers that resulted from the growth of one cell. Then, by taking into account the fillers located at the line that connected the centres of the two growing cells, we found the final filler's angle and location. We identified this as a function of the corresponding cell size, filler size, and the filler's initial angle and location. We based the model's development on the assumption that a polymer melt is incompressible during cell growth. The two-cell growth model is better than the one-cell growth model because it describes the filler's movement in the cell wall between the two growing cells. The results revealed that the fillers near the cell were the ones most affected by the cell growth, while those at the midpoint between the two cells were the least affected. As a cell grows, its affected polymer area also increases. A dimensionless factor η was introduced to demonstrate the effects of the cell size and the filler length on the filler's interconnectivity in the CPC foams. It is vital to keep the filler length comparable to the cell size when preparing CPC foams with the desired electrical conductivity. Our research provides a deeper understanding of the mechanism through which foaming influences the filler connections in CPC foams.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it