MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118894059 · doi:10.1177/0021998314533714

Simultaneous optimization of the mechanical properties of postconsumer natural fiber/plastic composites: Processing analysis

2014· article· en· W2118894059 on OpenAlexafffund
Jean Luc Toupe, Albert Trokourey, Denis Rodrigue

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composite Materials · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceUltimate tensile strengthComposite materialExtrusionFlexural strengthComposite numberMoldDesign of experimentsFiberNatural fiberResponse surface methodologyCentral composite designComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, manufacturing steps of composites were simultaneously analyzed to optimize four mechanical properties (flexural and tensile moduli, impact strength, and tensile stress at yield) of flax fiber/postconsumer recycled plastic composite. Eight parameters of the extrusion-injection process (extrusion: temperature profile and screw speed; injection: temperature profile in the barrel, mold temperature, injection speed, injection pressure, injection time, and back pressure) were selected. Process optimization, taking into account simultaneously all the mechanical properties (multi-responses optimization), required four steps: determination of influential factors by a screening design and an evaluation of the selected factors effects on the mechanical properties, modeling of the relationships between mechanical properties and significant factors by a Box–Behnken experimental design and a multiple linear regression analysis, identification of the potentially optimum conditions using the desirability function approach (Derringer–Suich model), and determination the optimum composite manufacturing conditions by a comparative analysis of the material relative qualities.

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 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 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 score0.218
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composite MaterialsSame topicNatural Fiber Reinforced CompositesFrench-language works237,207