Estimation of stresses required for exfoliation of clay particles in polymer nanocomposites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The dispersion of clay in a polymer matrix is influenced by two factors: the choice of organic treatment for the clay and the processing or mixing method. Maximum benefits are achieved when the platelets are well dispersed or exfoliated. Exfoliated nanocomposites are formed when the individual clay layers break off the agglomerated particles or tactoids and are either randomly dispersed in the polymer (a disordered nanocomposite) or left in an ordered array. It is suggested that size reduction of clay particles and platelet delamination occur by erosion or surface peeling. A model based on the classical theories of interparticle interactions was formulated for the exfoliation of the clay platelets in a polymer matrix. The model involves the estimation of the binding energy and the adhesive force between the platelets in a clay particle, which indicate the forces required for breaking apart or delamination of clay particles. Then, the shear force required for breakup or delamination of the tactoids is estimated and compared to the hydrodynamic shear forces available during processing. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 2009. © 2008 Society of Plastics Engineers
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".