Separation and Liberation Factors in Designing for Automotive Materials Recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="htmlview paragraph">One critical aspect of design-for-environment efforts is to increase the effectiveness of materials recovery from end-of-life vehicles. Recovery itself depends on both the amount of material recovered and the purity of the material stream. Shredding, and screening are often used to separate recyclable materials from wastes. However, with the increasing amount of composite components, particularly those made from plastics, separation processes may be inadequate. Instead, liberation processes, which reduce the physical joints between materials, are also important. In this research, samples of ABS and PVC plastics were assembled into various configurations, ground up, and then characterized by their size distributions and degrees of liberation. Two primary fastening methods - adhesive and riveting - were used to simulate how plastic components would be actually attached together. The results from this first phase of the research indicate that within the study parameters: 1) size distribution is largely independent of material type, material thickness, and fastening method; and 2) liberation varies with the type and degree of fastening.</div>
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".