MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010384963 · doi:10.1002/app.38018

Structure orientation and micromechanical characterization of platelet‐reinforced polyethylene nanocomposites

2012· article· en· W2010384963 on OpenAlexaff
Yongzhe Fan, Y. Charles Lu, Jianjun Lou, Chengchun Tang, D. M. Shinozaki

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Polymer Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Nanocomposites and Properties
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialNanocompositeMicrostructureAnisotropyPolyethyleneCompression moldingFourier transform infrared spectroscopyModulusCore (optical fiber)Molding (decorative)Optics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Clay reinforced polyethylene nanocomposites were prepared by melt mixing followed by transfer molding. The microstructure of the composites was characterized using Fourier transform infrared spectrometer and X‐ray diffraction. Results revealed the relative degree of particle orientation as a function of depth in the transferred molded materials. The particles were mostly oriented at the surface layers and randomly distributed at the core region. The anisotropy in mechanical properties due to clay orientations was characterized through novel dynamic microindentation test and analyzed by finite element simulation. When loaded in the flow direction (direction of clay orientations), the composites exhibited higher modulus at the surface than at the core; while loaded normal to the flow direction, the composites exhibited lower modulus at the surface than at the core. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 2013

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Polymer ScienceSame topicPolymer Nanocomposites and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207