Influence of retting process on the thermal and mechanical properties of flax/polypropylene composites made of canadian oilseed flax fibers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flax fibers are more and more used as reinforcing materials for composites in the field of material research because of their good mechanical properties, low abrasion, environmental friendliness and low cost. In this study, two kinds of Canadian oilseed flax fibers, dew-retted (F1) and enzyme-retted flax fibers (F2) were used as reinforcing material for flax/PP composites to investigate the influence of retting process on the composite properties Crystallization behavior, thermal stability and mechanical property of flax fiber reinforced PP composites were characterized in detail. It was shown that enzyme-retted flax with higher retting degree could lead to composites with better thermal and mechanical properties than dew-retted flax. PP composite reinforced with F2 presented 73% and 43% of tensile modulus and impact strenght higher than that of pure PP, respectively. In addtion, its tensile and flexural strengh were at least 35% higher than those of F1 reinforced PP composites.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".