MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phase behavior, interaction and properties of acetic acid lignin-containing polyurethane films coupled with aminopropyltriethoxy silane

2013· article· en· W1965977827 on OpenAlexafffund
Huie‐Hsiung Wang, Jing Mou, Yonghao Ni, G. Q. Fei, M. L. Chenna Reddy, Ji‐Jun Zou

Bibliographic record

VenueeXPRESS Polymer Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer composites and self-healing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersEducation Department of Shaanxi ProvinceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsPolyurethaneMaterials scienceSilaneLigninAcetic acidChemical engineeringPhase (matter)Polymer sciencePolymer chemistryOrganic chemistryComposite materialChemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A series of novel acetic acid lignin-containing polyurethane (LPU) films coupled with aminopropyltriethoxy silane (APTS) (LPUSi) or the mixture of APTS and trimethylol propane (TMP) (LPUSiT) were prepared.With 2% APTS addition, the crosslinking density increased, and the resultant films were endowed with good mechanical properties and water resistance.It was also found that the hydrogen bonding interaction between -NH and -C=O of urethane was destroyed, and new hydrogen bonds between APTS and LPU were formed.However, when APTS content was greater than 4%, significant phase aggregation were detected, resulting in poor mechanical properties and water resistance.In contrast, the crosslinking density, tensile strength and water resistance can be further improved with TMP addition at 2% APTS.The simultaneous addition of APTS and TMP was beneficial for phase mixing and the formation of uniform network.And the surface morphology of LPUSiT films became smoother and more homogeneous.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.239
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

Citations26
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeXPRESS Polymer LettersSame topicPolymer composites and self-healingFrench-language works237,207