MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981661739 · doi:10.1002/pen.21739

The effects of nanoclay on the extrusion foaming of wood fiber/polyethylene nanocomposites

2011· article· en· W1981661739 on OpenAlexaff
Yoon H. Lee, Takashi Kuboki, Chul B. Park, Mohini Sain

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymer Engineering and Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Foaming and Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialHigh-density polyethyleneExtrusionCompoundingNanocompositePolyethyleneExfoliation jointFiberComposite numberLow-density polyethylenePlastics extrusionBlowing agentDispersion (optics)Polyurethane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article presents the foaming behaviors of wood fiber/high density polyethylene (HDPE) composites with small amounts of nanoclay. Melt compounding is used to prepare two types of clay‐filled wood fiber composites: intercalated and exfoliated clay composites. Their respective morphologies are determined using wide‐angle X‐ray diffraction (XRD) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). We subsequently conduct an extrusion foaming experiment of the composites using N2 as the blowing agent. Varying the wood fiber content, as well as the processing parameters, such as temperature and pressure, the effects of different amounts of clay and the degree of exfoliation on the final cell morphology and the foam density of the wood fiber/HDPE/clay nanocomposite foams are studied. The results suggested that the addition of nanoclay improved the cell morphology of the wood fiber/HDPE composite foams as its content and degree of dispersion increased. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 2011. © 2011 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 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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations32
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymer Engineering and ScienceSame topicPolymer Foaming and CompositesFrench-language works237,207