MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327410521 · doi:10.1021/am402286x

Superhydrophobic Lignocellulosic Wood Fiber/Mineral Networks

2013· article· en· W2327410521 on OpenAlexafffund
Mehr Negar Mirvakili, Savvas G. Hatzikiriakos, Peter Englezos

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Applied Materials & Interfaces · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSurface Modification and Superhydrophobicity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceFiberMineralComposite materialLigninNanotechnologyMetallurgyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lignocellulosic wood fibers and mineral fillers (calcium carbonate, talc, or clay) were used to prepare paper samples (handsheets), which were then subjected to a fluorocarbon plasma treatment. The plasma treatment was performed in two steps: first using oxygen plasma to create nanoscale roughness on the surface of the handsheet, and second fluorocarbon deposition plasma to add a layer of low surface energy material. The wetting behavior of the resulting fiber/mineral network (handsheet) was determined. It was found the samples that were subjected to oxygen plasma etching prior to fluorocarbon deposition exhibit superhydrophobicity with low contact angle hysteresis. On the other hand, those that were only treated by fluorocarbon plasma resulted in "sticky" hydrophobicity behavior. Moreover, as the mineral content in the handsheet increases, the hydrophobicity after plasma treatment decreases. Finally, it was found that although the plasma-treated handsheets show excellent water repellency they are not good water vapor barriers.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.213
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations33
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Applied Materials & InterfacesSame topicSurface Modification and SuperhydrophobicityFrench-language works237,207