Effects of Coating on the Dimensional Stability of Wood-Polymer Composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wood polymer composites (WPC) are sensitive to moisture because of the hydrophilic nature of the wood fibers. The main objective of this study was to improve the dimensional stability of WPCs by coating. Polypropylene and polylactic acid were reinforced by three pulp fibers (kraft, thermomechanical (TMP), and chemothermomechanical (CTMP)) at three fiber contents (50, 60, and 70% w/w). The resulting WPCs were coated using two commercial coatings, epoxy and acrylic. Kraft fiber WPCs were less sensitive to moisture than TMP and CTMP WPCs. These differences were explained by the crystallinity of the kraft fibers and their better interfacial adhesion to the polymers. The epoxy coating proved to be more effective than the acrylic coating and significantly reduced the water absorption and the thickness swell for all formulations. Negative relationships between the contact angle and water absorption were obtained. These relationships depend on the fiber content and type, the matrix nature, and the coating.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".