MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985819577 · doi:10.1002/app.32753

Oxidized pea starch/chitosan composite films: Structural characterization and properties

2010· article· en· W1985819577 on OpenAlexaff
Haixia Wu, Chang‐Hua Liu, Jianguang Chen, Yun Chen, Debbie P. Anderson, Peter R. Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Polymer Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanocomposite Films for Food Packaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermogravimetric analysisChitosanMaterials scienceUltimate tensile strengthComposite numberFourier transform infrared spectroscopyStarchScanning electron microscopeChemical engineeringCastingPolymer chemistryComposite materialThermal stabilityHydrogen bondSolventMoleculeOrganic chemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this article, a series of oxidized pea starch/chitosan (OPS/CS) blend films were prepared by a casting and solvent evaporation method. The structure, thermal behavior, and mechanical properties of the films were investigated by means of Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, wide‐angle X‐ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy, thermogravimetric analysis, and tensile testing. The results suggested that, in addition to hydrogen bonding, the interactions between OPS and CS molecules were enhanced by the formation of electrostatic interaction between the negatively charged carboxyl groups on OPS and the positively charged amino groups on CS. Compared with the pea starch/chitosan (PS/CS) blend films, OPS/CS blend films exhibited significantly higher tensile strength with significantly lower elongation at break. Moreover, incorporation of CS into the OPS matrix also led to a decrease in moisture uptake by the composite film. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2010

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations29
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Polymer ScienceSame topicNanocomposite Films for Food PackagingFrench-language works237,207