MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902000017 · doi:10.1556/1848.2018.9.2.12

Thermal characterization of different graphite polystyrene

2018· article· en· W2902000017 on OpenAlexaff
Ákos Lakatos, Izabella Deák, Umberto Berardi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAerogels and thermal insulation
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersEuropean Social FundEuropean Commission
KeywordsPolystyreneMaterials scienceGraphiteThermal conductivityComposite materialThermal insulationMoistureExpanded polystyreneRelative humidityThermalPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of high performance insulating materials incorporating nanotechnologies has enabled considerable decrease in the effective thermal conductivity. Besides the use of conventional insulating materials, such as mineral fibers, the adoption of new nano-technological materials such as aerogel, vacuum insulation panels, graphite expanded polystyrene, is growing. In order to reduce the thermal conductivity of polystyrene insulation materials, during the manufacturing, nano/micro-sized graphite particles are added to the melt of the polystyrene grains. The mixing of graphite flakes into the polystyrene mould further reduces the lambda value, since graphite parts significantly reflect the radiant part of the thermal energy. In this study, laboratory tests carried out on graphite insulation materials are presented. Firstly, thermal conductivity results are described, and then sorption kinetic curves at high moisture content levels are shown. The moisture up-taking behaviour of the materials was investigated with a climatic chamber where the relative humidity was 90% at 293 K temperature. Finally, calorific values of the samples are presented after combusting in a bomb calorimeter.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations34
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Applied Sciences and EngineeringSame topicAerogels and thermal insulationFrench-language works237,207