Water absorption of hemp fiber/unsaturated polyester composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The water absorption of hemp fiber/unsaturated polyester composites was determined by immersing the samples in water or by exposing them to air with a relative humidity of 94%. The water absorption increased with increasing fiber content. By using images obtained with a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system, the moisture absorption process was shown to follow a diffusion mechanism and to be more important in the longitudinal than in the transverse direction. The longitudinal diffusion coefficient was computed to be about 3 × 10–11 m2/s. Composite samples immersed in water reached saturation levels after about eight months and showed no signs of cracking due to swelling. Fibers reached the same saturation limit whether submerged in water or exposed to saturated air when fiber content was less than 21 vol%. Various fiber treatments were tested but none resulted in a substantial increase of the resistance to water absorption. The most effective technique to enhance moisture resistance was to properly seal all the fibers within the matrix. POLYM. COMPOS. 26:509–525, 2005. © 2005 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".