Preparation of aromatic poly(1,3,4‐oxadiazoles) pulps and their paper properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT To improve the paper properties of the poly(1,3,4‐oxadiazoles) (POD), the POD pulps were prepared by prechemical and mechanical methods to increase their polarity, contact area, and interaction. The fibrillated degree of the staple fibers was evaluated by the Canadian Standard Freeness and the specific surface area, while the surface free energy was calculated by the Micro–wilhelmy method. Meanwhile, the functional groups and compositions on the surface of the POD fibers were confirmed by the FTIR–ATR and the X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy, and the surface morphological structure and the crystalline structure of the POD fibers were observed by the fiber analyzer, scanning electron microscope, and Wide‐angle X‐ray diffraction, respectively. It was found that the pronounced abrasive and distinctive grooves were formed on the surface of the POD fibers after prechemical and mechanical treatment. The surface free energy of POD fibers increased 8.41%, and the polar part increased by 32.10% after treatment. It was confirmed that the polar functional groups and fibril were formed after chemical and mechanical treatment, so the interaction of the POD fibers was highly enhanced, and as a result the apparent density, tensile strength, fold endurance, and tear strength of the paper formed by those treated fibers were all improved apparently. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2014 , 131 , 39818.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".