Melt processing of PA‐66/clay, HDPE/clay and HDPE/PA‐66/clay nanocomposites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Polyamide 66/clay, high‐density polyethylene (HDPE)/clay and HDPE/PA66/clay nanocomposites were prepared, using a twin‐screw extruder. The nanocomposites were characterized by means of transmission electron microscopy (TEM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), wide angle X‐ray diffraction (WAXD), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), optical microscopy and tensile testing. Effects of processing conditions and clay modifier were evaluated. The results show that exfoliation in the twin‐screw extruder is enhanced by the incorporation of mixing and shearing elements and high residence times. Compatibility of the clay modifier with the polymer matrix plays an important role in exfoliation. Clay does not influence the crystal form, melting temperature or crystallinity of PA‐66 and HDPE. However, it acts as a nucleation agent, increases marginally the crystallization temperatures, and reduces the crystallite size. Clay in the blend nanocomposites acts as a compatibilizer and changes the morphology of the blend. TEM micrographs suggest the presence of an exfoliated structure in PA‐66 and an intercalated structure in HDPE. Polym. Eng. Sci. 44:1152–1161, 2004. © 2004 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".