MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Preparation and characterization of hydroxyethyl cellulose/nanolignin composite films

2024· article· en· W4401875010 on OpenAlexaff
Mustafa Zor, Hikmet Yazıcı, Ferhat Şen, Erdal Eroğlu, Zeki Candan, Denis Rodrigue, Xiaodong Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueBioResources · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSynthesis and properties of polymers
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceCharacterization (materials science)CelluloseComposite numberComposite materialHydroxyethyl celluloseChemical engineeringPolymer scienceNanotechnologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydroxyethyl cellulose/nanolignin composite films were prepared and characterized. The composite films were produced via casting of synthesized nanolignin added to hydroxyethyl cellulose at different concentrations (2.5%, 5%, 10%, and 20% by mass). A control film without nanolignin was also prepared for comparison. The thermal properties of the composite films were examined by thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), while the mechanical properties were determined by tensile testing and the surface properties were determined by water contact angle measurements. In addition, the morphologies of the samples were examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). It was observed that with the addition of nano lignin, the glass transition temperature of the composite films increased from 109 °C to 262 °C; the elongation at break increased from 19% to 51%; and the contact angles increased from 53 °C to 73 °C. The results showed that the presence of nanolignin produced materials being more flexible and more hydrophobic with higher glass transition temperatures.

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 score0.003

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioResourcesSame topicSynthesis and properties of polymersFrench-language works237,207