MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413909850 · doi:10.1016/j.mfglet.2025.06.007

Application of machine learning to predict the properties of wood- composite made from PET, HDPE, and PP fibres

2025· article· en· W4413909850 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueManufacturing Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHigh-density polyethyleneComposite numberComposite materialMaterials sciencePolymer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePolyethylene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plastic composites provide an eco-friendly substitute for conventional construction materials. Indeed, recycling waste plastic represents a progressive approach to waste management with the aim of mitigating the growing issue of pollution in urban environments. Our research aims to review the physical properties, including water absorption (WA) and thickness swelling (TS), and mechanical properties, such as the internal bond (IB), the modulus of rupture (MOR), and the modulus of elasticity (MOE), of the latest findings made of wood panels combined with plastic. We are focusing on three types of plastic, namely polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene (PP), and high-density polyethylene (HDPE). In addition, we employed machine learning (ML) algorithms, including the hierarchical clustering dendrogram, the Pearson correlation coefficient, the support vector regression, the random forest (RF), and the decision tree (DT) for prediction analysis. For instance, the results indicate that combining HDPE with wood pulp fiber increases the MOR (42.45 MPa) and MOE (66.7 MPa), respectively. Furthermore, mixed plastics such as PET, HDPE, PP, and LDPE improve the dimensional stability by reducing the WA (0.32 %) and TS (0.18 %), respectively. In most cases, these results meet the minimum standard requirement for general-purpose boards, according with the American National Standard for Particleboard (ANSI/A208.1-1999), the European standard (EN 312), and Brazilian Association of Technical (ABNT NBR) standard. In addition, the dendrogram identifies three primary clusters with varying Euclidean distances, indicating the performance of wood-plastic panels for both physical and mechanical properties. Notably, the dimensional stability among panels is stronger than that of mechanical properties. The correlation matrix is important for selecting an appropriate plastic. The SVR, RF, and DT algorithms make predictions by analyzing the properties of the panel. For instance, the DT algorithm shows that when WA is less than 25 %, the predicted value of TS is 0.24 %; in addition, when the value is between 25 % and 75 %, TS is equal to 7.92 %; also, when WA is greater than 75 %, TS is predicted to be at 13.7 %. This innovative method of utilizing ML and DL for prediction opens new possibilities for the use of plastic in panel production, as it allows for the selection of suitable materials and fabrication techniques to create a wood-plastic composite.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.194 · 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