MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016410457 · doi:10.1002/app.32198

Effect of nanofillers as reinforcement agents for lignin composite fibers

2010· article· en· W2016410457 on OpenAlexaff
Olena Sevastyanova, W. Qin, John F. Kadla

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Polymer Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Nanocomposites and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrganoclayMaterials scienceNanocompositeOrganosolvExfoliation jointIntercalation (chemistry)MontmorilloniteLigninComposite materialComposite numberUltimate tensile strengthChemistryOrganic chemistryGrapheneNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Biobased nanocomposites and composite fibers were prepared from organosolv lignin/organoclay mixtures by mechanical mixing and subsequent melt intercalation. Two organically‐modified montmorillonite (MMT) clays with different ammonium cations were used. The effect of organoclay varying from 1 to 10 wt % on the mechanical and thermal properties of the nanocomposites was studied. Thermal analysis revealed an increased in Tg for the nanocomposites as compared with the original organosolv lignin. For both organoclays, lignin intercalation into the silicate layers was observed using X‐ray diffraction (XRD). The intercalated hybrids exhibited a substantial increase in tensile strength and melt processability. In the case of organoclay Cloisite 30B, X‐ray analysis indicates the possibility of complete exfoliation at 1 wt % organoclay loading. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2010

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)0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations43
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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