MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of Silica Ceramic Particle Sizes on the Properties of Recycled Polyethylene Composites

2013· article· en· W2141794447 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Johnson Olumuyiwa Agunsoye, Segun Isaac Talabi, Victor Sunday Aigbodion, Agunsoye J. Olumuyiwa

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in natural science/Advances in natural sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTribology and Wear Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialCeramicPolyethyleneFactorial experimentFiller (materials)Composite numberParticle (ecology)Particle sizeMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Particulate filled polymeric composites are becoming attractive because of their wide applications and lower production cost. To evaluate the possibility of using waste silica based ceramic materials as reinforcing filler in recycled polyethylene (PE) composite, the effect of  ceramic (PC) particle sizes on the mechanical, wear and thermal behaviours of polyethylene (PE) composites were investigated at  (2wt% filler) and grain sizes (40µm-150µm). The wear behaviour was characterized using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and linear regression to determine the main and interactive effects of the process parameters such as speed, load and time on the wear behaviour of the fabricated PE-PC composites. Test results show that the decreasing the ceramic particles 150µm-40µm improved the mechanical, wear and thermal properties of the recycled polyethylene (PE) composites. Factorial design of the experiment can be successfully employed to describe the wear behavior  of the samples and developed linear equation for predicting wear rate with in selected experimental conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in natural science/Advances in natural sciencesSame topicTribology and Wear AnalysisFrench-language works237,207