Behavior of polyethylene composites based on hemp fibers treated by <scp>surface‐initiated</scp> catalytic polymerization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this investigation, hemp fibers were‐surface treated by ethylene polymerization grafting to determine the effect of high grafting level on the mechanical (tensile and impact) and dynamic mechanical properties of linear medium‐density polyethylene (L) composites (20%wt.) produced via melt compounding. The results showed that, comparing the treated hemp composite (L20PH) with the untreated hemp composite (L20H), the modification reduced by 44% the modified fibers composite water absorption, while increasing the elongation and tensile strength by about 197% and 14%, respectively. Moreover, due to better interfacial interactions with the matrix and the flexibility imparted by the presence of both grafted and ungrafted polyethylene (PE) onto modified hemp fibers, the corresponding composite exhibited lower density and significantly high impact resistance (about 57%) compared to the untreated hemp composite. These results were confirmed by the composites creep strain as L20PH and L maximum strain (ε max ) was respectively 18% and 42% higher compared to that of L20H, showing that L20H has the high modulus followed by L20PH and then L. The significant improvement of the modified composite flexibility, impact resistance and the limited reduction of its modulus make this material not only suitable for building and construction applications, but also in the production of packaging and automotive parts.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".