MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002935417 · doi:10.3390/molecules25030474

Environmental Durability Enhancement of Natural Fibres Using Plastination: A Feasibility Investigation on Bamboo

2020· article· en· W3002935417 on OpenAlexaff
Daanvir K. Dhir, Armin Rashidi, Grant R. Bogyo, Ron Ryde, Sepideh Pakpour, Abbas S. Milani

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecules · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialBambooUltimate tensile strengthMoistureWater contentAbsorption of water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural fibers are gaining wide attention due to their much lower carbon footprint and economic factors compared to synthetic fibers. The moisture affinity of these lignocellulosic fibres, however, is still one of the main challenges when using them, e.g., for outdoor applications, leading to fast degradation rates. Plastination is a technique originally used for the preservation of human and animal body organs for many years, by replacing the water and fat present in the tissues with a polymer. This article investigates the feasibility of adapting such plastination to bamboo natural fibres using the S-10 room-temperature technique in order to hinder their moisture absorption ability. The effect of plastination on the mechanical properties and residual moisture content of the bamboo natural fibre samples was evaluated. Energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS) and X-ray micro-computed tomography (Micro-CT) were employed to characterize the chemical composition and 3-dimensional morphology of the plastinated specimens. The results clearly show that, as plastination lessens the hydrophilic tendency of the bamboo fibres, it also decreases the residual moisture content and increases the tensile strength and stiffness of the fibers.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations20
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMoleculesSame topicNatural Fiber Reinforced CompositesFrench-language works237,207