MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025262407 · doi:10.1080/02773813.2013.795807

Incorporation of Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes into Electrospun Softwood Kraft Lignin-Based Fibers

2013· article· en· W2025262407 on OpenAlexaff
Nai-Yu Teng, Ian Dallmeyer, John F. Kadla

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wood Chemistry and Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicElectrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon nanotubeSoftwoodComposite materialLigninFiberCarbonizationCelluloseMaterials scienceElectrospinningPolyacrylonitrileChemical engineeringKraft paperCellulose fiberSuspension (topology)PolymerChemistryScanning electron microscopeOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Intrinsic properties such as mechanical and electrical conductive properties make carbon nanotubes an ideal nanofiller for reinforcement of polymer materials. In this study, multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWNTs) were suspended in various fractionated softwood kraft lignin (SKL) concentrations and electrospun into fibers. Solutions prepared from F1–3SKL suspensions contained aggregated MWNTs, which led to spraying and droplet accumulation during fiber formation. By contrast, MWNT suspensions prepared with F4SKL were well dispersed and readily electrospun into fibers. Increasing the F4SKL concentration in the MWNTs' suspension resulted in better electrospinnability. Adding 10 mg of F4SKL enabled as much as 18.6 mg of MWNTs (or 6 wt% based on fiber weight) to be dispersed and electrospun into fibers. The resulting MWNT-reinforced SKL fibers were then thermostabilized and carbonized and the resulting carbon fibers characterized. Unfortunately, the mechanical properties of the fibers did not improve with incorporation of MWNTs. However, the electrical conductivity increased from 2.3 to 3.0 S/cm when incorporating 6 wt% MWNTs into the fibers.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations51
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wood Chemistry and TechnologySame topicElectrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207