MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2939429748 · doi:10.1039/c9ra00769e

Chitin nano-whiskers (CNWs) as a bio-based bio-degradable reinforcement for epoxy: evaluation of the impact of CNWs on the morphological, fracture, mechanical, dynamic mechanical, and thermal characteristics of DGEBA epoxy resin

2019· article· en· W2939429748 on OpenAlexafffund
Muhammad A.S. Anwer, Jintian Wang, Aaron Guan, Hani E. Naguib

Bibliographic record

VenueRSC Advances · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer composites and self-healing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Public Health
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsCanada Foundation for InnovationUniversities Space Research Association
KeywordsEpoxyComposite materialMaterials scienceFracture toughnessWhiskersToughnessIzod impact strength testUltimate tensile strengthGlass transitionWhiskerPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chitin nano-whiskers (CNWs) are high performance nanomaterials that can be extracted from chitin, which is one of the most widely available bio-resources. Herein we investigate the effect of CNWs on the morphological, mechanical, dynamic mechanical and thermal properties of DGEBA epoxy. Optically transparent, bulk epoxy nano-composites with 0.25 wt%, 0.5 wt% and 0.75 wt% CNWs were evaluated in addition to neat epoxy. The composites were prepared based on a modified slurry compounding method. CNWs appear to be well dispersed within the epoxy matrix with increasing tendency for clustering as the CNW content is increased. The addition of 0.25 wt% CNWs to neat epoxy results in a decrease in the glass transition temperature and an increase in the tensile strength, modulus, damping and thermal degradation temperature. All the composites evaluated with CNWs showed distinct crack arrest events upon initiation of the first major crack growth during fracture toughness testing. Composites with 0.75 wt% CNWs showed the highest damping and an increase in the fracture toughness and resilience over neat epoxy.

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)0.001
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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations33
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRSC AdvancesSame topicPolymer composites and self-healingFrench-language works237,207