MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W34356640 · doi:10.3390/biom11071016

Role of pro-oxidant and nanoclay in thermal degradation of polythelene

2010· article· en· W34356640 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Rajarathinam Parthasarathy, Sati N. Bhattacharya

Bibliographic record

VenueChemeca 2010: Engineering at the Edge; 26-29 September 2010, Hilton Adelaide, South Australia · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Nanocomposites and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNanocompositeExfoliation jointFourier transform infrared spectroscopyPolyethyleneDegradation (telecommunications)Thermal oxidationMaterials scienceIntercalation (chemistry)Chemical engineeringOxygenComposite materialChemistryGrapheneNanotechnologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Combined effects of nanoclay and pro-oxidant on abiotic oxidation of polyethylene with different concentration of clay have been investigated in this study in order to prepare environmentally-friendly and economical polyethylene-nanoclay composites. Oxidation of polyethylene-nanocomposite film samples was carried out in an air-circulated oven. Morphology of nanocomposites was studied using wide angle x-ray diffraction (XRD) to investigate the degree of exfoliation/intercalation in nanocomposites. FTIR spectroscopy was used to evaluate the thermal oxidation rate of nanocomposites by measuring the intensity of carbonyl peaks in FTIR spectra and carbonyl index values. Experimental results showed that thermal degradation is improved noticeably due to the presence of pro-oxidant while the presence of clay act as a barrier for oxygen thereby slowing the thermal degradation rate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.220
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemeca 2010: Engineering at the Edge; 26-29 September 2010, Hilton Adelaide, South AustraliaSame topicPolymer Nanocomposites and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207