Properties of microinjection molding of polymer multiwalled carbon nanotube conducting composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The effects of processing conditions on the microstructure and properties of polypropylene/multiwalled carbon nanotube (PP/MWCNT) and polycarbonate/multiwalled carbon nanotube (PC/MWCNT) composites were studied. Samples of various MWCNT loadings were prepared by diluting commercial masterbatches. Different processing conditions were then used to systematically change the degree of nanotube alignment, from random to highly aligned. The crystallinity of the PP/MWCNT nanocomposites was found to go through a maximum as a function of nanotube content while the overall rate of crystallization increased. For the highly sheared microinjected PP/MWCNT samples well oriented crystals were formed. Electrical conductivity of the nanocomposites was improved by the presence of the crystalline structure; however, the high degree of nanotube alignment in the microparts resulted in a significant increase in the electrical percolation threshold. The PP nanocomposites exhibited mechanical properties significantly enhanced by nanotube loading; this effect was small in the case of the PC nanocomposites. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 2011. © 2011 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".