Morphology and performance of epoxy nanocomposites modified with organoclay and rubber
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hybrid epoxy nanocomposites modified with carboxyl‐terminated butadiene acrylonitrile (CTBN) rubber and organoclay were synthesized. The morphology of those nanocomposites was studied with X‐ray diffraction (XRD), Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). The results showed that most of the organoclay in the nanocomposites was exfoliated and high cure temperatures benefit the formation of exfoliated nanocomposites. Organoclay simultaneously improved fracture toughness, compressive modulus, yield strength and ultimate strength of the epoxy resin. Organoclay not only enhanced Tg, yield strength and ultimate strength of rubber‐modified epoxies, but also further improved their fracture toughness. There was a superposition effect on fracture toughness of the hybrid epoxy nanocomposites modified with both rubber and organoclay. Polym. Eng. Sci. 44:1178–1186, 2004. © 2004 Society of Plastics Engineers.
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".