MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ZnO Treatment on Mechanical Behavior of Polyethylene/Yellow Birch Fiber Composites When Exposed to Fungal Wood Rots

2023· preprint· en· W4385515937 on OpenAlexafffund
Kodjovi Kekeli Agbozouhoue, Demagna Koffi, Fouad Erchiqui, Simon Barnabé

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-TémiscamingueUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialUltimate tensile strengthIzod impact strength testMolding (decorative)Composite numberHigh-density polyethyleneWood flourPolyethyleneYoung's modulusWood-plastic compositeZincModulus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wood plastic composite usage and demands have increased due to chemical, and mechanical properties when compared to plastic materials. However, because of the possibility of structural and mechanical changes of the material when exposed to external environment more research needs to be done. In the present study yellow birch/HDPE composites materials made by injection molding were treated by zinc oxide and exposed to fungal rots. Mechanical properties of the composites were assessed by Tensile and Izod impact test. The impact energies of the samples loaded with 30 % ZnO-treated fibers and exposed to G. trabeum and T. versicolor decreased, compared to when samples were not treated with ZnO. The mechanical properties of all samples treated with ZnO and exposed to rot decreased which were reported as a decreased Young's modulus and impact energies. ZnO prevented mycelium proliferation which was nonexistent on samples. It has been noted that the decrease in mechanical properties of treated samples was due to NaOH used to dissolve the ZnO powder.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicNatural Fiber Reinforced CompositesFrench-language works237,207