MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067866459 · doi:10.1002/app.28725

A comparison of the properties of rice husk ash, silica, and calcium carbonate filled 75 : 25 NR/EPDM blends

2008· article· en· W2067866459 on OpenAlexaff
Wanvimon Arayapranee, Garry L. Rempel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Polymer Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Nanocomposites and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceVulcanizationNatural rubberComposite materialTear resistanceUltimate tensile strengthPrecipitated silicaCalcium carbonateCuring (chemistry)Filler (materials)HuskElastomerEPDM rubberPolymer blendPolymerCopolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The effects of incorporation of three different fillers, i.e., rice husk ash (RHA), silica, and calcium carbonate (CaCO 3 ), over a loading range of 0–60 phr on the curing characteristics, processability, mechanical properties, and morphology of 75 : 25 natural rubber (NR)/ethylene‐propylene‐diene monomer (EPDM) blends were studied using a conventional vulcanization system. Filler loading and type influence the processability of the blends in which RHA and CaCO 3 offer better processing advantage over silica. The best improvement in the tensile and tear strength and abrasion resistance of the 75 : 25 NR/EPDM blends with additional fillers was achieved when filled with silica. However, RHA and CaCO 3 were better in resilience property compared to that of silica. The RHA filled blends showed higher failure properties and abrasion resistance but lower ozone resistance than that containing CaCO 3 . Scanning electron micrographs revealed that the morphology of the blend filled with silica is finer and more homogenous compared to the blend filled with RHA and CaCO 3 . According to these observations, RHA can be used as a cheaper filler to replace CaCO 3 in rubber blends where improved mechanical properties are not so critical. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2008

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)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.847

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations20
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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