High performance of bamboo‐based fiber composites from long bamboo fiber bundles and phenolic resins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Lignocellulosic materials can be used for the development of bio‐based composites. This study explores the potential of long bamboo fiber bundles extracted directly from bamboo stems using the novel mechanical method and bamboo‐based fiber composites (BFC) fabricated using long bamboo fiber bundles and phenolic resins via cold pressing and thermal cure process. The microstructure, mechanical properties, and durability of BFC were evaluated, results being compared with raw bamboo and other commercialized bamboo fiber composites. The mechanical properties of BFC reinforced with 87% (w/w) long bamboo fiber bundles increased more than 50% than those of raw bamboo and were significantly higher than those of other bamboo‐based composites. Lower water absorption and thickness swelling were obtained in the case where bamboo fiber bundles with the small fineness. Higher tensile strength was obtained in the case where bamboo fiber bundles with large sizes of bamboo fiber bundles. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2014 , 131 , 40371.
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".