MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7065169132

Development of biocomposites from preprocessed wood barks

2017· article· en· W7065169132 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiocompositeRaw materialPolypropyleneFiller (materials)Plastics extrusionThermoplasticRenewable energy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the rapid advancement of material science and technology, it is anticipated that the next growth area for biomaterials will be in developing energy-efficient processes and lightweight performance products for automotive applications. In this context, wood barks represent a low cost feedstock to produce biocomposites but there has been limited work on investigating its feasibility. The main emphasis of this work is on the utilization of preprocessed yellow birch barks and thermoplastic polypropylene to develop low cost biocomposites, more sustainable and renewable materials, whilst reducing weight and cost and maintaining reliability. The barks were utilized in two different forms. In the first case, the barks were used directly to prepare the biocomposites, while prior extraction of tannins from the barks was performed in a second case. Both forms of the barks were melt-compounded with polypropylene at different bark/polypropylene ratios in a twin-screw extruder to enhance the interaction between them. A coupling agent was used to improve the bark-matrix interface and maximize the desired biocomposite mechanical properties. In addition, low cost calcium oxide filler was added to further replace the fraction of the PP in the blend. The morphology, the mechanical properties, the water sensitivity and the thermal stability of the obtained biocomposites were also investigated and will be presented. A comprehensive mass and energy balance was established and a systematic strategy was implemented for adjusting and optimizing energy use in the integrated twin-screw extrusion system.

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 score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARC→Same topicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations→French-language works237,207→