MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111579372 · doi:10.5539/jmsr.v1n4p89

Mechanical Properties of Rice Husk Fiiled Cashew Nut Shell Liquid Resin Composites

2012· article· en· W2111579372 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael Ikpi Ofem, Muneer Umar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials Science Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceHuskComposite materialFiller (materials)Ultimate tensile strengthComposite numberFlexural strengthParticle (ecology)Particle sizeIzod impact strength test

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The need to have composite materials that are renewable has lead to materials scientists researching on natural fibres. To minimize environmental pollution research into rice husk has been on for a period of time now. In this research cashew nut resin reinforced rice husk composite was fabricated at different particle sizes and different filler loading. The present study reveals that both filler loading and particle size can affect the tensile strength, young modulus, strain at failure, flexural strength, and impact strength. As the % filler content increases all particle sizes (400µm, 600µm and 800µm) shows a quadratic relationship except % elongation at failure which tends to be linear at 400µm. As particle size increases all % filler content shows quadratic relationship which tends to be linear. As particle sizes increases impact strength for 10 and 30% shows a linear equation while 20% shows a quadratic relationship which tends to be linear. In general, RH/CNSR composite could be considered as a potential source of low cost, natural fibre for composites.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations28
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials Science ResearchSame topicNatural Fiber Reinforced CompositesFrench-language works237,207