MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimization of Curing Process for Carbon Fiberpreparation from Wood-Phenol Liquefaction Product

2011· article· en· W2109520129 on OpenAlex
Zhigao Liu, Fang Ding, Zhaoyun Wu, Qiuhui Zhang

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in natural science/Advances in natural sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFiber-reinforced polymer composites
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCuring (chemistry)Hydrochloric acidMaterials sciencePhenolComposite materialCrystallinityChemical engineeringChemistryOrganic chemistryMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, China fir was liquefied in phenol, and liquefactionproduct was used to produce carbon fiber precursors by curing process. The effect of heating rate, curing temperature, curing time and hydrochloric acid concentration on curing processwas investigated by orthogonal experimentsin term of the crystallinityof carbon fiber precursors produced.According to experiment results, the primary and secondary relation of the four variables is: curing time>curing temperature>hydrochloric acid concentration >heating rate. The optimal conditions of curing technology are as follow: heating rate of 15 °C/h, curing temperature of 90 °C, curing time of 2 h with hydrochloric acid concentration of 18.5%. Using the optimal conditions, carbon fiber precursors could obtain the highest crystallinity of 36.96%. Key words: Carbon fiber precursors; Curing; Crystallinity; Liquefaction; Phenol

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.387
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.008
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.267 · 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