Rotomolded polyethylene‐agave fiber composites: Effect of fiber surface treatment on the mechanical properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, a comparison between different agave fiber surface treatments has been presented to improve the mechanical properties of rotomolded natural fiber composites (NFC). The fiber treatments were carried out with sodium hydroxide, 2‐chlorobenzaldehyde, maleic anhydride grafted polyethylene, acrylic acid, methyl methacrylate, and triethoxy vinyl silane. In particular, a simple dry‐blending technique was used to introduce agave fibers in the polymer matrix (linear medium density polyethylene). The samples were produced at 15 wt% fiber content and characterized in terms of morphology, density, hardness, and mechanical properties (tension, flexural, and impact). The results showed that surface treatments improved the homogeneity (uniform morphology) of NFC and the best mechanical improvements (77% for strength and 30% for stiffness) were obtained with maleic anhydride grafted polyethylene. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 56:856–865, 2016. © 2016 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".