MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983029849 · doi:10.1351/pac-con-12-04-05

Renewable resources-based PTT [poly(trimethylene terephthalate)]/switchgrass fiber composites: The effect of compatibilization

2012· article· en· W1983029849 on OpenAlexafffund
Jeevan Prasad Reddy, Manjusri Misra, Amar K. Mohanty

Bibliographic record

VenuePure and Applied Chemistry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersAUTO21 Network of Centres of Excellence
KeywordsCompatibilizationComposite materialDynamic mechanical analysisIzod impact strength testThermal stabilityMelt flow indexExtrusionMaterials scienceScanning electron microscopeComposite numberFiberPolybutadieneChemistryPolymerUltimate tensile strengthPolymer blendCopolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this research, switchgrass (SG) fiber-reinforced poly(trimethylene terephthalate) (PTT) biocomposites were prepared by extrusion followed by injection molding machine. The methylene-diphenyl-diisocyanate-polybutadiene (MDIPB) prepolymer was used to enhance the impact strength of the biocomposites. In addition, the polymeric methylene-diphenyl-diisocyanate (PMDI) compatibilizer was used to enhance the mechanical properties of the composites. The effect of compatibilizer on mechanical, crystallization melting, thermomechanical, melt flow index (MFI), morphological, and thermal stability properties of the composites was studied. Thermomechanical properties of the biocomposites were studied by dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA). Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to observe the interfacial adhesion between the fiber and matrix. The results showed that MDIPB and PMDI have a significant effect on the mechanical properties of the composites. The impact strength of MDIPB- and PMDI-compatibilized composites was increased by 87 % when compared to the uncompatibilized composite.

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)0.000
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePure and Applied ChemistrySame topicNatural Fiber Reinforced CompositesFrench-language works237,207