MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400211574 · doi:10.3390/nano14131122

Rheology of Suspensions Thickened by Cellulose Nanocrystals

2024· article· en· W4400211574 on OpenAlexafffund
Rajinder Pal, Karthika Pattath

Bibliographic record

VenueNanomaterials · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvanced Cellulose Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRheologyShear thinningMaterials scienceSuspension (topology)Sauter mean diameterViscosityCelluloseNanocrystalParticle (ecology)Particle sizeChemical engineeringApparent viscosityPower lawComposite materialThermodynamicsNanotechnologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The steady rheological behavior of suspensions of solid particles thickened by cellulose nanocrystals is investigated. Two different types and sizes of particles are used in the preparation of suspensions, namely, TG hollow spheres of 69 µm in Sauter mean diameter and solospheres S-32 of 14 µm in Sauter mean diameter. The nanocrystal concentration varies from 0 to 3.5 wt% and the particle concentration varies from 0 to 57.2 vol%. The influence of salt (NaCl) concentration and pH on the rheology of suspensions is also investigated. The suspensions generally exhibit shear-thinning behavior. The degree of shear-thinning is stronger in suspensions of smaller size particles. The experimental viscosity data are adequately described by a power-law model. The variations in power-law parameters (consistency index and flow behavior index) under different conditions are determined and discussed in detail.

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNanomaterialsSame topicAdvanced Cellulose Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207