MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001194201 · doi:10.1115/imece2019-12053

Effect of Graphene Nanoplatelet Addition on the Conductive Behavior of Solution Mixing Processed Polylactide Biopolymer Nanocomposites

2019· article· en· W3001194201 on OpenAlexaff
Qi Zhang, Pierre Mertiny

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialCompression moldingNanocompositeBiopolymerGraphenePolylactic acidThermal conductivityElectrical resistivity and conductivityConductivityPolymerPolyesterConductive polymerFabricationElectrical conductorNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The fabrication of highly thermally and electrically conductive polymer materials is of interest for multiple applications, for example, in electronics packaging and biosensors. Polylactic acid (PLA), a commercially available and biodegradable polyesters, is widely used and studied since it is considered a environmentally friendly alternative to petrochemical-based synthetic polymers. In the present study, graphene nanoplatelets (GNP) reinforced PLA composites were prepared via solution blending followed by a compression molding process. Various physical and thermo-mechanical analyses were performed with the prepared composites. For instance, the electrical conductivity of PLA/GNP composites at various filler loadings was determined using four-point probe resistivity measurements. An electrical conductivity of 0.1 S/cm was achieved at a GNP loading of 12 wt%. Using the hot-disk transient plane source method, anisotropic thermal conductivity properties were evaluated. An in-plane and through-plane thermal conductivity of 0.87 W/mK and 0.58 W/mK was achieved with the addition of 6 wt% GNP, which is a nearly twofold and over fourfold increase compared to neat PLA, respectively.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.213
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207