<i>In Situ</i> Follow-Up of the Intercalation Process in a Clay/Polymer Nanocomposite Model System by Rheo-XRD Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work deals with the follow-up of structure evolution in clay−polymer nanocomposites during the intercalation process through in situ analyses combining X-ray diffraction and rheology using a home-modified X-ray diffraction setup coupled with a rheometer with a special shearing cell developed for this work. To avoid any interference of medium elasticity, the selected matrix was a bisphenol A-based epoxy resin DGEBA with a Newtonian behavior under the examined experimental conditions. The selected clay was an organophilic montmorillonite (Cloisite 30B). The evolution of clay stacks in the clay−polymer nanocomposites was assessed under quiescent conditions by simultaneous time-resolved X-ray diffraction (XRD) and rheometry. The main results showed a very slow polymer diffusion process that increases the concentration of the intercalated stacks, narrows their distribution, and decreases the number of lamellae per stack.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".