MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391686144 · doi:10.1002/pat.6310

A study on theoretical predictive model and experimental findings of melt‐electrospinning process

2024· article· en· W4391686144 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymers for Advanced Technologies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicElectrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceElectrospinningProcess (computing)Process engineeringChemical engineeringComposite materialPolymerComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The current study extends a previous work published by the authors in which an analytical predictive model is proposed to simulate the melt‐electrospinning process. The analytical model is specifically designed to predict the various behaviors of the melt‐electrospun fiber under different material and processing conditions. A brief discussion of this model is presented here to establish context and help the reader capture the modeling philosophy employed. The current study complements the previous work by focusing on the experimental aspects of the research. Correlations between the independent process parameters and the topological attributes of the melt‐electrospun fibers are investigated and compared with findings from the theoretical model. The effects of changes in the process parameters on average fiber diameters and the collection diameter are experimentally analyzed using the design of experiments (DOE) techniques. Toward this end, polylactic acid (PLA) is melt‐electrospun at different treatment levels of the processing parameters in a controlled environment. Two regression‐based models—one for predicting the collection diameter and the other for the fiber diameter—are derived from the DOE data for benchmarking and quantitative evaluation of the predictive performance of the theoretical model. The theoretical model is run based on the same treatment levels as the experiment. The elastic parameter values used in the theoretical simulation are extracted from rheological tests. Comparison between the simulated and the observed fiber characteristics revealed that the collector diameter predictions by the theoretical model exhibited approximately a 16.7% difference compared to 24.2% for the average fiber diameter. Finally, a discussion is presented on the challenges and potential factors contributing to the observed differences. Overall, given the identified challenges and gaps in material characterization, the results of the theoretical predictive model are encouraging.

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 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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.308 · 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