MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409702504 · doi:10.3390/molecules30091879

Implementation of Machine Learning in Flat Die Extrusion of Polymers

2025· article· en· W4409702504 on OpenAlexaff
Nickolas D. Polychronopoulos, Ioannis E. Sarris, J. Vlachopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecules · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicRheology and Fluid Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsExtrusionRheologyDie (integrated circuit)ThroughputPolymerShear rateComputer scienceSupport vector machineMaterials scienceArtificial intelligenceVolumetric flow rateMechanical engineeringMachine learningComposite materialEngineering drawingNanotechnologyMechanicsEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Achieving a uniform thickness and defect-free production in the flat die extrusion of polymer sheets and films is a major challenge. Dies are designed for one extrusion scenario, for a polymer grade with specified rheological behavior, and for a given throughput rate. The extrusion of different polymer grades and at different flow rates requires trial-and-error procedures. This study investigated the application of machine learning (ML) to provide guidance for the extrusion of sheets and films with a reduced thickness, non-uniformities, and without defects. A dataset of 200 cases was generated using computer simulation software for flat die extrusion. The dataset encompassed variations in die geometry by varying the gap under a restrictor, polymer rheological and thermophysical properties, and processing conditions, including throughput rate and temperatures. The dataset was used to train and evaluate the following three powerful machine learning (ML) algorithms: Random Forest (RF), XGBoost, and Support Vector Regression (SVR). The ML models were trained to predict thickness variations, pressure drops, and the lowest wall shear rate (targets). Using the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis provided valuable insights into the influence of input features, highlighting the critical roles of polymer rheology, throughput rate, and the gap beneath the restrictor in determining targets. This ML-based methodology has the potential to reduce or even eliminate the use of trial and error procedures.

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 score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMoleculesSame topicRheology and Fluid Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207