MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1527870364 · doi:10.1002/9783527647026.ch3

Quasi‐Static Fracture Tests

2012· other· en· W1527870364 on OpenAlexaff
Raymond A. Pearson, B.R.K. Blackman, R.D.S.G. Campilho, M.F.S.F. de Moura, Nuno Dourado, Robert Adams, David Dillard, J.H.L. Pang, Peter Davies, A. Ameli, S. Azari, M. Papini, J.K. Spelt, Edoardo Nicoli, Hitendra K. Singh, Charles E. Frazier, S. Giannis, Keith Armstrong, Neal Murphy, Luiz F. Kawashita

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialFracture toughnessTest fixtureAdhesiveFracture (geology)BendingCantileverStructural engineeringFixtureBeam (structure)Mixed modeEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter contains sections titled: Measuring Bulk Fracture Toughness Quasi-Static Fracture Tests: Double Cantilever Beam and Tapered Double Cantilever Beam Testing End-Notched Flexure Mode II Fracture Characterization of Bonded Joints Using the ELS Test The Notched Torsion Test to Determine the Mode III Fracture Properties of Adhesives Other Mixed Mode Adhesive Fracture Test Specimens Compact Mixed Mode (CMM) Fracture Test Method Mixed Mode Bending (MMB) with a Reeder and Crews Fixture Mixed Mode Fracture Testing Fracture of Wood Double Cantilever Beam (DCB) Specimens The T-Peel Test Peel Testing at 180° The Floating Roller Peel Test Climbing Drum Peel Test The Analysis of Peel Tests References

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.007

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMechanical Behavior of CompositesFrench-language works237,207