MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078894321 · doi:10.1163/156855407782106591

The effect of fibre and coupling agent content on the mechanical properties of hemp/polypropylene composites

2007· article· en· W2078894321 on OpenAlexafffund
Ahmed Mechraoui, Bernard Riedl, Denis Rodrigue

Bibliographic record

VenueComposite Interfaces · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialPolypropyleneUltimate tensile strengthCompression moldingWaxScanning electron microscopeMaleic anhydrideHomogenization (climate)PelletsCoupling (piping)MoldPolymerCopolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Composites made from hemp and polypropylene were prepared in order to determine the effect of fibre and coupling agent content on their mechanical properties. The samples were prepared by compression molding after an initial melt blending and homogenization step in an internal batch mixer. Different fibre contents (0, 10, 20 and 30 wt%) and sizes (355 and 500 μm) were used with two coupling agents: maleic anhydride polypropylene (MAPP) pellets and wax. For each case, MAPP concentrations between 0 and 7 wt% (fibre basis) were added to determine the optimum amount maximizing mechanical properties. The fractured surfaces of these composites were investigated by scanning electron microscopic technique (SEM) to investigate the fibre/matrix interfacial bonding. The mechanical properties of the composites were characterized in tensile, torsion, and flexion and the results showed that coupling agent addition has a positive effect on all moduli with an optimum content ranging between 2 and 4 wt%. It was also found that the coupling agent wax was more effective that the pellets.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations38
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComposite InterfacesSame topicNatural Fiber Reinforced CompositesFrench-language works237,207