MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127677890 · doi:10.1177/0021955x13504775

Foaming behavior of cellulose fiber-reinforced polypropylene composites in extrusion

2013· article· en· W2127677890 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cellular Plastics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Foaming and Composites
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials sciencePolypropyleneComposite materialExtrusionCelluloseBlowing agentCellulose fiberVoid (composites)FiberChemical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.209
Teacher spread0.201 · 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