Impact of thermal processing or solvent casting upon crystallization of PLA nanocellulose and/or nanoclay composites
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Here, we present how processing (solvent casting or isothermal crystallization) impacts crystallinity of poly(lactic acid) (PLA) and its nanocomposites (PLA/1 wt % cellulose nanofibers (CNFs), PLA/1 wt % nanoclay (C30B) or PLA/1 wt % CNF/1 wt % C30B. Polarized optical microscopy demonstrated a heterogeneous nucleation process during isothermal crystallization leading to smaller homogeneously distributed spherulites. With solvent casting, no effect on morphology was observed with respect to the nanoparticles, but an increased spherulite size was observed at higher temperatures. This fact raises significant concerns regarding the suitability of solvent casting as a lab‐scale procedure to investigate materials. Additionally, combining the reinforcing agents, CNF, and C30B, did not increase nucleation rate, in contrast with the general tendency, where the incorporation of both particles led to improved properties (e.g., thermomechanical and barrier properties). However, a combination of C30B and CNF did lead to an overall increase in the rigid amorphous fraction and a reduced mobile amorphous fraction. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2019 , 136 , 47486.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it