Effect of fiber treatment on the water absorption and mechanical properties of hemp fiber/polyethylene composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The hemp fiber/polyethylene (PE) composites were prepared by varying the fiber shape (hemp flour and hemp fiber from thermomechanical refining), coupling agent (maleic anhydride grafted and copolymerized onto PE), coupling agent loading method (during fiber treating process in the thermomechanical refiner and compositing process in twin screw extruder), and compositing method (twin screw extruding and batch mixing). The paper firstly measured the moisture absorption properties of the treated fibers. The introduction of coupling agent during fiber treating process decreased effectively the moisture uptake. Then, the water absorption and mechanical properties were investigated on the hemp/PE composites. The loading of coupling agent during fiber treating process decreased the water uptake but also decreased the flexural yield strength, consequently resulted in lower flexural yield strength after water exposure. The composites prepared by batch mixing method were better than by twin screw extruding for the water resistance and mechanical properties. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 2013
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".