MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7044286472

Wall slip and spurt of molten polymer

2004· dissertation· en· W7044286472 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2004
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicEnzyme Structure and Function
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlip (aerodynamics)Population
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Monsanto Automatic Capillary Rheometer and a sliding plate rheometer were used to study the spurt phenomenon and to discover whether it is the result of a system instability or a material property. The capillary rheometer has been the only instrument able to operate at spurt stresses up to present time, because capillary rheometers operate at shear stresses that are out of the range of rotational shear rheometers. However, a sliding plate rheometer can generate shear stresses in the spurt range. A comparative study using two linear polybutadiene samples at 50°C was carried out using these two rheometers. Special attention was paid to the evaluation of the actual pressure drop in the capillary in order to determine the true shear stress at the wall. It was found that spurt occurs only in the capillary rheometer. In other words, the flow curve generated by the sliding plate rheometer is continuous in the shear stress range where spurt is observed in the capillary rheometer. Slip velocities were determined using data from the two rheometers, and the slip velocities for the post-slip capillary flow all fall on the smooth curve based on sliding plate data, provided that the pressure drop in the capillary, and not the overall driving pressure, is used to calculate the wall shear stress.

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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.008

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 head0.223
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicEnzyme Structure and FunctionFrench-language works237,207