MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022885323 · doi:10.1002/prep.200300007

Polymer Nanocomposites from Energetic Thermoplastic Elastomers and Alex®

2003· article· en· W2022885323 on OpenAlexaff
Emmanuela Diaz, Patrick Brousseau, Guy Ampleman, Robert E. Prud’homme

Bibliographic record

VenuePropellants Explosives Pyrotechnics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergetic Materials and Combustion
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceThermoplastic elastomerComposite materialNanocompositePropellantElastomerThermoplasticEnergetic materialPolymerExplosive materialComposite numberCopolymerAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Polymer Nanocomposites (PNs) obtained from linear energetic copolyurethane thermoplastic elastomers (ETPEs) based on GAP and a commercially available nanometric aluminum (Alex) were characterized. Two methods were performed to prepare the PNs: in‐situ and by solvent evaporation. The thermal and mechanical properties of the pure ETPEs, of the composite ETPE/Al (micrometric) and of the nanocomposite ETPE/Alex were studied. The percentage of Alex was adjusted to obtain the optimum mechanical properties. The beneficial effects of the nanopowder on the material properties are highlighted. The introduction of nanoaluminum improves the elasticity and strength of the original ETPE and, consequently, makes it easier to use, to handle, and to process. It indicates that PNs can be considered for future applications in energetic material, such as in gun propellants, rocket propellants and insensitive melt‐cast explosive formulations.

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 score0.005

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 head0.163
Teacher spread0.158 · 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

Citations22
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePropellants Explosives PyrotechnicsSame topicEnergetic Materials and CombustionFrench-language works237,207