MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331116764 · doi:10.1177/0892705714563120

Formulation and tensile characterization of wood–plastic composites

2014· article· en· W2331116764 on OpenAlexaff
Fayçal Mijiyawa, Demagna Koffi, B. V. Kokta, Fouad Erchiqui

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Thermoplastic Composite Materials · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-TémiscamingueUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialPolypropyleneUltimate tensile strengthCompoundingMicromechanicsCompression moldingYoung's modulusFiberMaleic anhydrideModulusComposite numberPolymerCopolymerMold

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study reports the effects of wood fibers and 3 wt% maleic anhydride-grafted polypropylene used as coupling agent on the tensile properties of polypropylene/wood composites. Compounding was done in a roller-based internal batch mixer followed by compression molding. Our findings show that both birch and aspen wood fibers improve the elastic modulus and the tensile strength of composites, and the chemical treatment improves the fiber–matrix interface. A comparison of experimental results’ elastic modulus with micromechanics theoretical models shows that the Lavengood–Goettler model is closer to experimental data. Also the results showed that the polypropylene/wood composites’ elastic modulus exceeds high-performance thermoplastics commonly used in gears manufacturing. Thus, the price of polypropylene/wood fibers makes it a viable alternative for similar application.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations36
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Thermoplastic Composite MaterialsSame topicNatural Fiber Reinforced CompositesFrench-language works237,207