MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968781052 · doi:10.1177/0021998309360938

Effects of Formulation Design on Thermal Properties of Wood/Thermoplastic Composites

2010· article· en· W1968781052 on OpenAlexaff
Alireza Kaboorani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composite Materials · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialThermogravimetric analysisPolypropyleneDifferential scanning calorimetryThermal stabilityMaleic anhydrideWood flourParticle sizeHigh-density polyethyleneMelting pointParticle (ecology)ExtrusionThermoplasticPolyethylenePolymerCopolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, thermal properties of wood/HDPE composites were measured by thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The composites comprised of different wood (45%, 55%, and 65%) and maleic anhydride grafted polypropylene (MAPP) contents (0%, 1.5%, and 3%), and particle size (20, 40, and 80 mesh) were produced by extrusion method. TGA measurements showed that wood content is the most important factor affecting the thermal stability, initial mass loss, and ash content of the composites. Any increase in wood content led to increase in ash content and less thermally stable composites. MAPP and particle size were found to have less impact on thermal stability. By retarding the formation of charcoal MAPP influenced thermal stability of composites adversely in composites consisting of bigger particle. Composites made of 65% wood content with 20 mesh size and 0% MAPP were more thermally stable than composites made of 65% wood content with 80 mesh size and 3% MAPP, in the temperature range of 270-500°C. Melting point measurements by DSC showed that melting point had no relationship with wood and MAPP contents, and particle size.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composite MaterialsSame topicNatural Fiber Reinforced CompositesFrench-language works237,207