Effect of surface modification on the interface quality between hemp and linear medium‐density polyethylene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In this work, hemp fibers (mercerized or not) were modified by a coupling agent (maleated polyethylene) to evaluate the level of interfacial improvement related to wettability or adhesion in LMDPE composites. To do so, different analyses in the solid (thermogravimetric analysis, dynamic mechanical analysis, and scanning electron microscopy) and melt (rheology) states were combined. From the results obtained, it can be shown that mercerization mostly controls the level of wettability (physical contact) of the fibers, while the addition of a coupling agent mostly controls interfacial adhesion (chemical interactions). These conclusions were obtained based on shifts in transition temperatures (Tg and Tα), as well as maxima in van Gurp–Palmen plots. Overall, the best properties were obtained when mercerization was combined with coupling agent addition under optimized processing conditions. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2016, 133, 43802.
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".