MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Experimental evaluation of the resistance of nitrile rubber protective gloves against TiO<sub>2</sub>nanoparticles in water under conditions simulating occupational use

2013· article· en· W2059420184 on OpenAlexaff
Ludwig Vinches, Patricia I. Dolez, Kevin J. Wilkinson, Stéphane Hallé

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMaterial Properties and Applications
Canadian institutionsCTT Group (Canada)Université de MontréalÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNanoparticleTitanium dioxideNatural rubberNitrileNitrile rubberMaterials scienceComposite materialWater resistanceNanotechnologyChemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Manufactured nanoparticles (NPs), including titanium dioxide nanoparticles (nTiO 2 ), now enter in the formulation of several commercial products. Some studies have been carried out to assess the resistance of protective gloves against NPs, they have generally not considered the conditions prevailing in occupational settings. This study was designed to evaluate the behavior of protective gloves materials against NPs in solution under conditions simulating occupational use. Mechanical deformations, simulating those produced by flexing the hand, were applied to nitrile rubber glove samples in contact with nTiO 2 in water. The first analysis showed that nTiO 2 solution penetrates some of the materials after prolonged dynamic deformations. These results were partly attributed to modifications in the physical and mechanical properties of protective gloves materials that were induced by repetitive mechanical deformations and/or the presence of the colloidal solution.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.288
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicMaterial Properties and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207