Investigation of cellulose filaments as filler in rigid insulating polyurethane foam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cellulose is a biopolymer that has broad potential applications including in building insulation, and it was studied for its potential as a filler material. A closed-cell polyurethane foam insulation formulation was developed, and cellulose filaments (CFs) were introduced at varying percentages. The viscosity and morphology of the formulations were studied, as were different foam properties, such as water vapor permeability, reaction kinetics, density, porosity, thermal conductivity, and compressive strength foams as a function of cellulose filaments content. A commercial foam was also tested as a reference. The cellulose filaments impacted the formulations’ viscosity, and all the properties of the resulting insulating material. For example, samples containing 5% of cellulose filaments were found to perform differently than samples containing 0%, 1% and 2.5% mainly due to agglomerate formation, which impacted cell size (about 0.1 mm2 at 0%, 1% and 2.5% versus a mean of over 0.4 mm2 at 5%), and differential vapor sorption (with a mass change of 2%wt at 0 parts per hundred of polyol versus 2.5%wt at 5% from 0% to 95% relative humidity). However, the required performances by the standards of polyurethane foam insulation material were always fulfilled regardless of the amount of cellulose filaments present.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".