Foaming behavior of cellulose fiber-reinforced polypropylene composites in extrusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the effect of polypropylene type and cellulose content on the foaming behavior of cellulose fiber-reinforced polypropylene composites in extrusion. Two types of polypropylene (linear and branched structures) were used as a polymer matrix. The thermal properties of the composites were characterized by a differential scanning calorimeter, and the viscosity of the composites was evaluated by a rotational rheometer. The foaming behavior of the composites was examined using an extrusion foaming system, in which carbon dioxide was used as a physical blowing agent for foams. The results suggested that the cell density increased with the increase of cellulose content. On the other hand, the void fraction decreased with the addition of cellulose, but the void fraction at the 40 wt% cellulose was higher than that at the 20 wt% cellulose. The results also indicated that the two types of polypropylene had a minimal effect on the foaming behaviors of the cellulose fiber 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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".