MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cellulose Nanocrystals Examined by Atomic Force Microscopy: Applications and Fundamentals

2022· article· en· W4311904976 on OpenAlexaff
Aref Abbasi Moud

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Food Science & Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvanced Cellulose Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharacterization (materials science)NanotechnologyMaterials scienceAtomic force microscopyNanoscopic scaleParticle (ecology)Nanoparticle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) are nanoscale particles with huge surface areas, excellent mechanical properties, and the ability to develop tunable surface chemistry, thus allowing them to be mixed into a wide range of matrices. Using atomic force microscopy (AFM), we highlight recent developments in the microstructural characterization of CNC particles in various shapes at both particle and organization scales. Considering new uses for CNC suspensions and gels and given the considerable potential of CNC-based products in medicinal, energy, cosmetics, filtration, and food applications, leveraging existing state-of-the-art characterization technologies such as AFM to improve CNC-produced properties cannot be ruled out. AFM may be used as a probe to disclose more intimate information about CNCs and can show modulus, size, and morphology in comparison to other characterization tools. AFM based on the literature review here was found to be a good assessment tool to verify the state of interaction, the adhesion strength of certain particles or chemicals, and the mechanical properties of CNCs. Thus, in tandem with other technologically advanced characterization tools, knowledge provided here for proper assessment of CNCs is necessary. Based on the AFM application currently widespread on CNCs, it appears that more research efforts are needed to provide additional cues regarding CNC individual states or the organized state (isotropic or liquid crystalline) for future sustainable, ecofriendly product designs based on CNCs.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations25
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Food Science & TechnologySame topicAdvanced Cellulose Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207