Wood particle/high‐density polyethylene composites: Thermal sensitivity and nucleating ability of wood particles
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 The thermal sensitivity, nucleating ability, and nonisothermal crystallization of high‐density polyethylene (HDPE) with different wood fillers during wood/HDPE melt processing were investigated with thermogravimetric analysis and differential scanning calorimetry. The results showed that the wood degraded at a lower temperature than HDPE. The thermal decomposition behavior was similar across wood species. The most remarkable dissimilarities were observed between wood and bark in the decomposition rate around a processing temperature of 300°C and in the peak temperature location for cellulose degradation. The higher degradation rate for bark was explained by the devolatilization of extractives and the degradation of lignin, which were present in higher amounts in pine bark. The nucleating ability for various wood fillers was evaluated with the crystalline weight fraction, crystal conversion, crystallization half‐time, and crystallization temperature of the HDPE matrix. The nucleation activity improved with the addition of wood particles to the HDPE matrix. However, no effect of wood species on the crystal conversion was found. For composites based on semicrystalline matrix polymers, the crystal conversion may be an important factor in determining the stiffness and fracture behavior. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2009
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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