MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971729282 · doi:10.1002/aic.16784

Modeling of sequence length distribution for olefin copolymerization with vanadium‐based catalyst

2019· article· en· W2971729282 on OpenAlexaff
Xi‐Pei Cheng, Lianfang Feng, Xue‐Ping Gu, Xi Chen, Zhen‐Guo Liu, Kimberley B. McAuley

Bibliographic record

VenueAIChE Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer crystallization and properties
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPolyolefinVanadiumOlefin fiberSequence (biology)Molar mass distributionCatalysisPolymerCopolymerMaterials scienceThermodynamicsMethyleneMole fractionPolymer chemistryChemistryOrganic chemistryComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Some thermodynamic and mechanical properties of a polyolefin, such as the melting temperature and the rigidity, are dependent on the nature of its sequence distribution. Accurate modeling of sequence length distribution (SLD) is important in precisely tuning and optimizing the properties of polymers produced. In this article, we proposed a model to predict the molecular weight distribution (MWD) and SLD for olefin copolymerization with vanadium‐based catalyst. Due to the 2,1‐insertion of α‐olefin with vanadium‐based catalyst, the SLD is expressed by uninterrupted methylene sequence distribution instead of conventional triad sequence distribution. To obtain a reliable model, parameter estimation with experimental data is first conducted. The SLD model along with the estimated kinetic parameters can be used to predict unmeasurable sequence length fraction. For the experimental conditions studied, the average methylene sequence length is predicted to change from 10 to 4 units as the propylene/ethylene mole feed ratio increases from 1.1 to 3.4.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIChE JournalSame topicPolymer crystallization and propertiesFrench-language works237,207