MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038279825 · doi:10.1002/aic.690481211

Surface modification of polyvinylidene fluoride pervaporation membranes

2002· article· en· W2038279825 on OpenAlexaff
M. Khayet, Geeta Chowdhury, Takeshi Matsuura

Bibliographic record

VenueAIChE Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSurface Modification and Superhydrophobicity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolyvinylidene fluorideMembraneContact anglePhase inversionPervaporationChemical engineeringMaterials scienceSolventChloroformEvaporationWettingFluoridePolymer chemistryChromatographyChemistryComposite materialOrganic chemistryPermeationInorganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) membranes were surface‐modified using fluorinated surface‐modifying macromolecules (SMMs) additives. The membranes were prepared using the phase‐inversion method. Two novel SMM formulations were used. The effect of some relevant parameters, such as the solvent evaporation time, evaporation temperature, and concentration of SMM in the PVDF casting solution, was considered. The prepared membranes were characterized in terms of the contact angle analysis, the liquid entry pressure of water measurements, and the scanning electron microscopy. Pervaporation experiments were conducted for dilute chloroform/water binary mixtures. Based on the contact angle analysis, the incorporation of SMM into the PVDF casting solution produced membranes with higher surface hydrophobicity. The pervaporative performance of the prepared membranes was investigated, and the relationship between the surface characteristics of the modified PVDF membranes and the chloroform separation discussed.

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations66
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIChE JournalSame topicSurface Modification and SuperhydrophobicityFrench-language works237,207