Effect of biopolymer blends on physical and Acoustical properties of biocomposite foams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Bio‐based foams are the solution to environmental concerns raised by petrochemical‐based open cell foams used in various industries for sound absorption. While conventional petrochemical‐based polymers take centuries to degrade or may not degrade at all, bio‐based polymers decompose to biomass, water, and carbon dioxide in a matter of months when exposed to proper environment. To increase the potential of replacing current petrochemical foams, mechanical as well as acoustic characteristics of bio‐based foams need to be improved. This article studies the effect of blending two bio‐based polymers and physics of the blends on acoustic and mechanical properties of resulting polymer composite foams. Different blends of polylactide with three grades of polyhydroxyalkanoates were foamed and characterized based on acoustic and mechanical performance. Rheological properties of pure polymers as well as their blends were studied and effect of polymer blends on acoustic absorption of the resulting foams was investigated. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Polym. Sci., Part B: Polym. Phys. 2014, 52, 1002–1013
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".