MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057759944 · doi:10.1002/app.25253

Barrier properties of polypropylene/organoclay nanocomposites

2006· article· en· W2057759944 on OpenAlexaff
Marie‐Josée Dumont, Alejandra Reyna-Valencia, J. P. Emond, Mostapha Bousmina

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Polymer Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Nanocomposites and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolypropyleneOrganoclayMontmorilloniteMaterials scienceNanocompositeExfoliation jointPolymerCrystallinityComposite materialChemical engineeringGrapheneNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Polypropylene/clay nanocomposites are attractive candidates for applications requiring good barrier properties because of the inherent features of the polymer matrix. To assess their potential, systematic research relating the barrier performance to the structural characteristics of polypropylene/montmorillonite samples has been conducted. The nanocomposites have been tested in the presence of helium, water vapor, toluene, and methanol, and the unmodified matrix has been found to exhibit better properties than its mixtures with the compatibilizer and/or clay. The method for the interpretation of the results proposed in this study considers the composition of the samples, the morphology of the semicrystalline polymer matrix, and the state of dispersion/exfoliation of the clay layers, along with the specific interactions between the solvent molecules and the system components. In this way, several points have been identified for understanding and improving the performance of the nanocomposites. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 103: 618–625, 2007

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 score0.003

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations55
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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