MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2219124377 · doi:10.1109/ceidp.2015.7352110

Effect of POSS as compatibilizing agent on structure and dielectric response of LDPE/TiO2 nanocomposites

2015· article· en· W2219124377 on OpenAlexaff
Bouchaib Zazoum, M. Fréchette, Éric David

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSilicone and Siloxane Chemistry
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureHydro-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLow-density polyethyleneNanocompositeMaterials scienceNanoparticleTitanium dioxideDielectricPolyethylenePolymerChemical engineeringPolymer chemistryNanotechnologyComposite materialOptoelectronicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two types of nanocomposites were prepared. The first type was prepared by ball milling-blending of untreated titanium dioxide (TiO <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sub> ) nanoparticles into low density polyethylene (LDPE). For the second type, a commercial chemically treated TiO <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sub> with trisilanol phenyl polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane (TSP-POSS) as dispersant was ball milling-blended into LDPE. In this paper, titanium dioxide was selected as a model to show the effect of POSS on dispersion improvement of metal oxides nanoparticles and to understand the correlation between structure and dielectric response of LDPE/TiO <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sub> nanocomposites. The microscopic observation by AFM showed that the TiO <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sub> treated with the POSS were better dispersed in the polymer matrix as compared to untreated TiO <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sub> . Furthermore, the dielectric loss for the nanocomposites filled with treated TiO <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sub> was significantly lower than that for nanocomposites filled with untreated TiO <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sub> nanoparticles.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSilicone and Siloxane ChemistryFrench-language works237,207