Cellulose nanofibers from the skin of beavertail cactus, <i><scp>O</scp>puntia basilaris</i>, as reinforcements for polyvinyl alcohol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In this study, the skin of the beavertail cactus, Opuntia Basilaris, was used for the isolation of cellulose nanofibers using a chemo‐mechanical technique. It was shown that the skins had a relatively high cellulose content, whereas their lignin content was low. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy and X‐ray diffraction proved that the isolation of cellulose nanofibers from the amorphous components of the skins was performed successfully. The cactus skins were also shown to have a high content of calcium oxalate crystals. Morphological observations proved that the isolated cellulose fibers had diameters in the range of 10–50 nm. It was shown that the addition of nanofibers increased the modulus and strength of the polyvinyl alcohol matrix significantly, whereas the elongation at break decreased. Thermogravimetric analysis proved that: (i) isolated nanofibers had higher thermal stabilities than the cactus skins, and (ii) inclusion of nanofibers increased the stability of polyvinyl alcohol noticeably. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2015, 132, 42499.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".