MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890064589 · doi:10.1177/096739111302100604

Thermal Analysis of Highly Filled Composites of Polystyrene with Lignin

2013· article· en· W2890064589 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamad Reza Barzegari, Ayşe Alemdar, Yaolin Zhang, Denis Rodrigue

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymers and Polymer Composites · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLignin and Wood Chemistry
Canadian institutionsFPInnovationsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDynamic mechanical analysisMaterials scienceThermogravimetric analysisPolystyreneDifferential scanning calorimetryLigninComposite materialThermal stabilityDynamic modulusThermal analysisComposite numberPolymerChemical engineeringThermalOrganic chemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper focuses on the thermal properties of polystyrene/lignin composites over a wide range of lignin content. Blending with and without a compatibilizer (styrene/ethylene/butylene copolymer) was performed in an internal batch mixer to prepare samples between 0 and 80%wt of lignin. From the compounds, an extensive thermal study was performed, including thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) and dynamic mechanical thermal analysis (DMTA). TGA results indicated that the thermal stability of polystyrene increases with increasing lignin content. DMTA analysis showed higher storage modulus and lower loss factor with increasing lignin content for the range of temperature studied (30-150 °C). DSC results showed that the lignin/PS composites have a single T g which is close to that of polystyrene. The addition of a compatibilizer up to 2%wt was found to improve the storage modulus of lignin/PS composite, especially at low temperature. Finally, scanning electron microscopy micrographs were used to show the state of interfacial adhesion or compatibility between lignin particles and the polystyrene matrix.

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 score0.003

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Citations29
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymers and Polymer CompositesSame topicLignin and Wood ChemistryFrench-language works237,207