MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889593004 · doi:10.1177/096739111702500606

Auto-hybridization of Polyethylene/Maple Composites: The Effect of Fiber Size and Concentration

2017· article· en· W2889593004 on OpenAlexaff
Wendy Rodríguez-Castellanos, Denis Rodrigue

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymers and Polymer Composites · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComposite materialMaterials scienceUltimate tensile strengthLinear low-density polyethylenePolyethyleneCompression moldingFiberModulusMapleExtrusionYoung's modulusIzod impact strength testMold

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work investigated the effect of maple fiber size and content on the auto-hybridization of linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) composites. The samples were compounded by twin-screw extrusion and molded by compression molding. Different fiber loadings (5 to 20% wt.), fiber sizes (0-425 microns) and size ratios (30/70, 50/50, 70/30 of short, medium, and long fibers) were used to prepare the auto-hybrid composites with 3% of coupling agent (maleated polyethylene). Micrographs and impact strength results showed that the fracture in auto-hybrid composites is mostly dependent on the longer fibers. At 10% wt. the optimum ratio was 30/70 of shorter/longer fibers, which improved tensile strength (20%), tensile modulus (20%), and impact strength (13%) compared with composites with a single fiber size. But at 20% wt., tensile modulus increased by 30% and torsion modulus by 40% above the rule of hybrid mixtures (RoHM) at a 70/30 ratio of shorter/longer fibers.

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 score0.004

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymers and Polymer CompositesSame topicNatural Fiber Reinforced CompositesFrench-language works237,207