Application of machine learning to predict the properties of wood- composite made from PET, HDPE, and PP fibres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".