MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6990782750

Enhanced fire resistance of cellulosic fibers for green polymer composites

2012· article· en· W6990782750 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicFlame retardant materials and properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCellulosic ethanolFlammabilityCellulose fiberFire resistanceComposite numberRenewable resourceFiber
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The incorporation of renewable resources in composite materials is a viable means to reduce environmental impact and support sustainability development in the composites industry. Cellulosic fiber polymer composites have received very much attraction for different industrial applications because of its low density and the renewable ability. However, the uses of cellulosic fibers in the composite are limited in many applications that require fire resistance due to their flammability and their low thermal resistance. This paper reports an innovative and sustainable treatment approaches to retard the burning of cellulosic fibers for composite production in which a minimum amount of non-toxic and low cost inorganic chemicals have been used. Different types of reacting minerals and different treatment parameters have been investigated in order to determine the most cost-effective treatment solution. The cellulosic fibers obtained from this approach become self-extinguished while there is no negative effect on fiber strength. The composite with the treated cellulosic fibers also shows their good fire resistance with minor effect on the mechanical properties. Thus this solution will open the door for the use of the cellulosic fibers in composites for applications where fire resistance is an important issue, particularly in aerospace, transportation, and construction.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicFlame retardant materials and propertiesFrench-language works237,207