Thermal and Mechanical Properties of Blends and Composites from HDPE and Date Pits Particles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The date pits flour was used as a filling material in composition with high density polyethylene (HDPE). The blending proportions were: (1) 10% date pits, 90% HDPE; (2) 20% date pits, 80% HDPE; (3) 30% date pits, 70% HDPE; and (4) 40% date pits, 60% HDPE. Thermal conductivities, specific heat, and melt flow index of the blends were determined. The thermal conductivities ranged from 0.460 to 0.720 W/(m°C) and specific heats ranged from 1.10 to 5.30 kJ/(kg°C). The tensile and flexural tests on composite plates, fabricated by compress molding, indicated that strength and strain values decreased with increase in the percentage of date pits. There was no significant difference between flexural moduli of elasticity of the composites, but tensile modulus had the highest value at 30% blend. Moduli of elasticity of the composites were lower than the plates prepared from virgin HDPE at 180°C. It was presumed that high temperature processing of pure HDPE altered its original properties and consequently increased its modulus of elasticity.
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) | 0.002 | 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".