MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7037333060

Effect of addition of nanoclays on properties of vinyl ester

2010· article· en· W7037333060 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSpider Taxonomy and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVinyl esterStyreneFlammabilityFlexural strengthAbsorption of waterDiluentVinyl polymerVinyl alcohol
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vinyl ester resins have been used in many engineering applications such as matrix for composites used in ships, chemical reservoirs, pipes etc. It is desirable to enhance a few important properties of the resin such as flammability resistance, water absorption resistance, and fracture toughness. The addition of nanoclays has been shown to enhance these properties of epoxy resins. The work in this project is to investigate the effect of adding nanoclays on these properties of vinyl ester. Commercial vinyl esters usually contain styrene, which serves both as a diluent and a crosslinking agent. The presence of styrene complicates the incorporation of clays into the vinyl ester. As such two types of vinyl ester were used. One is commercial vinyl ester (Derakane 411- 350) which contains styrene, and the other is vinyl ester synthesized in the laboratory, which is kept free of styrene during the clay incorporation. Different types of clays were examined. Different methods of mixing the clays in the vinyl ester were investigated. The results show that among the different clays, composites made using vinyl ester and Cloisite 20A show better performance. If the mixing conditions are right, there is significant improvement in fracture toughness. However there is some reduction in flexural strength upon the addition of the clays.

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 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.228 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicSpider Taxonomy and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207