Flammability properties of paper coated with poly (methylenephosphine), an organophosphorus polymer
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The flame retardant properties of paper coated with either poly(methylenephosphine) ( PMP ) or poly(methylenephosphine oxide) ( PMP‐O ) are evaluated. Paper sheets made from thermomechanical pulp were coated with PMP ( M n = 27,000 g mol −1 , polydispersity index (PDI) = 1.47), PMP‐O ( M n = 30,000 g mol −1 , PDI = 1.24), or monobasic ammonium phosphate (MAP) to achieve an approximate loading of 0.8 mmol P/g paper. Thermal stability studies by thermogravimetric analysis show that the paper degrades in two main stages, with the second thermo‐oxidative stage having a slower rate of degradation for paper treated with flame retardants. The flame retardancy of the sheets was evaluated by Technical Association of Pulp and Paper Industry Standard Method T461 cm‐00 and by limiting oxygen index (LOI) according to ASTM D2863. After leaching with water, samples coated with PMP or PMP‐O show no loss of flame retardancy, while those coated with MAP lose all flame retardancy. The LOI of paper coated with PMP (23.1%) or PMP‐O (25.9%) is higher than those of uncoated paper (19.6%), but lower than MAP‐coated paper (34.7%). Analysis of the char provided evidence that the flame retardant mechanism of PMP and PMP‐O involves the formation of phosphorus oxides and acids. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 it