Polymerization compounding of polyurethane‐fumed silica composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Polymerization Compounding (PC) offers the possibility to design composite materials by controlling the architecture of a grafted polymer on the surface of solid substrates to be incorporated in a polymer matrix. The approach consists in involving the surface of a reinforcement in a polymerization process of a polymer to be used either as a matrix in the final composite or else as a special surface treatment to enhance solid/polymer interface properties in the composite. The PC process is illustrated here with fumed silica as a solid substrate and polyurethane as a matrix. The hydroxyl sites on silica particles were reacted consecutively with a toluene diisocyanate (TDI) compound and then with either bis‐phenol‐A (BA) or hydroxy‐terminated polybutadiene (HTPB) in order to obtain the desired coating. Soxhlet extractions were conducted to confirm grafting of the polymer on the solid surface. The amount of grafted polymer was evaluated by thermogravimetric analysis. Modified particles were incorporated into HTPB/TDI compounds at concentrations as high as 25% w/w. Water absorption, thermorheological as well as mechanical properties all show clear contribution of the improved bonding between the solid phase and the binder. POLYM. ENG. SCI. 46:360–371, 2006. © 2006 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".