MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022936776 · doi:10.1002/mren.202000008

Experimental Evaluation of a Catalyst Fragmentation Model for Olefin Polymerization

2020· article· en· W3022936776 on OpenAlexaff
Bruna Kulik Hassan, Caroline P. Dutra, João Henrique Zimnoch dos Santos, Adriano G. Fisch, Nilo Sérgio Medeiros Cardozo

Bibliographic record

VenueMacromolecular Reaction Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCatalytic Processes in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsFragmentation (computing)CatalysisCalcinationPolymerizationPolyethyleneOlefin polymerizationOlefin fiberMaterials scienceScanning electron microscopePolymer chemistryChemical engineeringChemistryPolymerOrganic chemistryComposite materialComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fragmentation of supported catalysts plays an important role on olefin polymerization, which has motivated several studies on this topic in recent years. This work aims to obtain experimental data to compare with the predictions of a theoretical model previously developed in the research group, which uses only kinetic constants and the catalyst physical properties as input parameters. Three zirconocene catalysts supported on silica are used to produce polyethylene. The reaction products are calcined and analyzed by scanning electron microscopy. Good qualitative agreement is observed between the model predictions for radial extent of fragmentation and the experimentally observed fragmentation patterns. This includes the transition of a pattern of total fragmentation to one of partial fragmentation at the external layers of the catalyst as its pore volume decreases.

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 score0.400
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacromolecular Reaction EngineeringSame topicCatalytic Processes in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207