Comparison between dew‐retted and enzyme‐retted flax fibers as reinforcing material for composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Two kinds of retted Canadian linseed flax fibers, dew‐retted (F1) and enzyme‐retted flax fibers (F2) were characterized in detail for their applications in composites, such as retting degree, thermal stability, tensile strength, and interfacial behavior in polypropylene (PP) matrix. It's clear from Scanning Electron Micrograph that the aspect ratio of F2 was much higher than that of F1 in the light of their separated elementary fibers in most cases. Instead, the elementary fibers of F1 remained tightly bundled into technical fiber wrapping with more non‐cellulose portions. This reflected its lower retting degree and resulted in its lower thermal stability. Single fiber tensile test and single fiber pull‐out test were used to evaluate the fiber tensile properties and fiber/PP interfacial shear strength, respectively. Better retting degree and fewer damages on F2 endowed F2 better tensile property. Consequently, higher aspect ratio, retting degree, and tensile strength proved F2 to be a kind of better reinforcing material than F1 for composites. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 2012. 2011 published by Society of Plastics Engineers
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".