MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963184313 · doi:10.1155/2019/4304532

Swelling Resistance and Water-Induced Shape Memory Performances of Sisal Cellulose Nanofibers/Polyethylene Glycol/Citric Acid Nanocellulose Papers

2019· article· en· W2963184313 on OpenAlexaff
Zuocai Zhang, Yuqi Li, Laifu Song, Li Ren, Xu Xu, Shaorong Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nanomaterials · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer composites and self-healing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Guangxi ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMaterials scienceSwellingPolyethylene glycolCelluloseCitric acidNanocompositeUltimate tensile strengthPEG ratioNanocelluloseComposite materialChemical engineeringNanofiberOrganic chemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, a kind of nanocomposite paper was obtained by evaporation-induced self-assembly of a mixture of sisal cellulose nanofibers (CNF) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) as the matrix and citric acid (CA) as a cross-linking agent. The CNF/PEG/CA paper exhibited good water swelling resistance which could be controlled by changing the concentration of CA. In addition, this nanocomposite paper exhibited good mechanical properties and water-induced shape memory performance. In particular, when the dosage of CA was 30 wt.%, the tensile strength and the tensile modulus of the CNF/PEG/CA paper after swelling were 25.2 MPa and 813.0 MPa, respectively. Further, this nanocomposite showed great potential for water-induced shape memory materials with fast response speed. The shape recovery rate (<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"><mml:mtext>Rr</mml:mtext></mml:math>) of the CNF/PEG/CA paper reached 90.2% with 30 wt.% CA after being immersed in water for 11 s. It is anticipated that our current work can be used to exploit more efficient methods to overcome the poor water swelling resistance of the cellulose-based shape memory materials.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NanomaterialsSame topicPolymer composites and self-healingFrench-language works237,207