Properties of mineral filled poly(lactic acid)/poly(methyl methacrylate) blend
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This study examines the influence of three different minerals, that is, clay, calcium carbonate, and quartz on the physical, thermal, and mechanical properties of poly(lactic acid) (PLA)/poly(methyl methacrylate) blend. Rheological behavior and phase structure were initially studied by small‐amplitude oscillatory shear rheology. Clay‐ and quartz‐filled materials presented an increase in viscosity at low frequency associated with the presence of a yield stress. However, this behavior was not observed for calcium carbonate filled materials due to a matrix degradation effect. To elucidate this aspect, thermal stability and thermal properties were examined by thermogravimetric analysis and differential scanning calorimetry, showing that calcium carbonate promotes degradation of the PLA phase. No nucleating effect was observed in the presence of the minerals. Dynamical mechanical analysis and mechanical characterization revealed an increase of the overall softening temperature and, a reinforcing effect for clay‐ and quartz‐based composites. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2019, 136, 46927.
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) | 0.002 | 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".