MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255426748 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14651922

Microstructural and Chemical Analysis of Polyurethane and Polyisocyanurate Foam Insulations

2021· preprint· en· W4255426748 on OpenAlexaff
Jelena Madzarevic

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials sciencePolyurethaneComposite materialThermal conductivityBlowing agentPolymerMicrostructureThermal insulationThermalLayer (electronics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For some closed cell foam insulation products, the thermal conductivity increases at low temperatures, contrary to single thermal resistance values provided by manufacturers. This phenomenon has been demonstrated in various polyurethane and polyisocyanurate insulations. The reduction in thermal performance has been attributed to the diffusion of air and blowing agent through the foam and to the condensation of blowing agent. Aging processes such as freeze-thaw cycling, moisture accumulation, and polymer degradation further increase thermal conductivity. The initial cell structure plays a role in dictating the thermal performance. To further understand the loss of thermal performance in closed cell foams, microstructure and chemical characterization was performed in this study. The aging behavior of foam insulations was analyzed by imaging foams with SEM and by measuring foam. Changes in the polymer physical attributes were identified and compared to increases in thermal conductivity. This project also used gas chromatography and quantified changes in pentane concentration in polyisocyanurate foams that have undergone aging

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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207