MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283715694 · doi:10.1002/pc.26846

Natural rubber biocomposites reinforced with cellulose nanocrystals/lignin hybrid fillers

2022· article· en· W4283715694 on OpenAlexafffund
Hossein Kazemi, Frej Mighri, Keun Wan Park, Slim Frikha, Denis Rodrigue

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymer Composites · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLigninMaterials scienceUltimate tensile strengthComposite materialNatural rubberCelluloseBiopolymerComposite numberCarbon blackCuring (chemistry)Dynamic mechanical analysisFlexural strengthPolymerChemical engineeringOrganic chemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this study, a novel hybrid system containing lignin and cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) is developed to reinforce natural rubber (NR) and produce high‐performance biocomposites. Firstly, the effect of lignin content in lignin/NR biocomposites is investigated. Despite lignin's advantages as an inexpensive biopolymer, its addition to NR results in longer cure time, reduced tensile strength and increased loss factor (tan δ); that is, lignin addition has a negligible reinforcing effect compared to conventional fillers, such as carbon black (CB). On the other hand, adding only 7.5 parts per hundred rubber (phr) of CNC to lignin/NR compounds decreased the curing time (14%) and loss factor (55% at 10% strain), while increasing the bound rubber content (37%), modulus at 100% strain (101%) and tensile strength (36%). CNC/lignin/NR bionanocomposites exhibited comparable mechanical properties and even better dynamical mechanical properties (53% lower loss factor at 10% strain) than conventional composites reinforced with CB. The optimum lignin content in the NR composite was 40 phr, while the percolation threshold for CNC was around 7 phr.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.205
Teacher spread0.199 · 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.

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

Citations23
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymer CompositesSame topicNatural Fiber Reinforced CompositesFrench-language works237,207