Wood–polymer composites prepared by the <i>in situ</i> polymerization of monomers within wood
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Wood–polymer composites (WPCs) were prepared from poplar wood ( P. ussuriensis Komarov) in a two‐step procedure. Maleic anhydride (MAN) was first dissolved in acetone and impregnated into wood; this was followed by a heat process; and then, glycidyl methacrylate (GMA) and styrene (St) were further impregnated into the MAN‐treated wood, followed by a second thermal treatment. Finally, the novel WPC was fabricated. The reactions occurring in the WPC, the aggregation of the resulting polymers, and their interaction with the wood substrate were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, X‐ray diffraction, and dynamic mechanical analysis. The performance of WPC was also evaluated in terms of the mechanical properties and durability, which were then correlated with the structural analysis of the WPC. The test results show that MAN and GMA/St chemically reacted with the wood cell walls in sequence, and the quantity of hydroxyl groups in the wood cell walls was evidently reduced. Meanwhile, St copolymerized with GMA or MAN, and the resulting polymers mainly filled in the wood cell lumen in an amorphous form, tightly contacting the wood cell walls without noticeable gaps. As a result, the mechanical properties, decay resistance, and dimensional stability of the WPC were remarkably improved over those of the untreated wood, and its glass‐transition temperature also increased. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2011
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it