MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1825370761

An Advanced Damage Percolation Model of Ductile Fracture

2016· article· en· W1825370761 on OpenAlexaff
C. Butcher, Zengtao Chen, Michael J. Worswick

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceVoid (composites)Coalescence (physics)NucleationPercolation (cognitive psychology)Composite materialMechanicsForensic engineeringPhysicsEngineeringThermodynamics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A multi-scale damage percolation model has been developed to predict fracture in advanced materials with heterogeneous particle distributions. The percolation model was implemented into a commercial finite-element code using so-called “percolation elements ” to capture the complex stress- and strain-gradients that develop within the microstructure during deformation. In this approach, fracture is predicted as a direct consequence of the stress state, material properties and local conditions within the microstructure. Void nucleation, growth and coalescence models are applied for ellipsoidal voids subjected to general loading conditions. A novel void nucleation rule is employed for particle cracking based upon the particle morphology and stress state. A particle field generator has been implemented into the percolation software to generate representative particle fields based upon the field statistics obtained using x-ray micro-tomography. The percolation model was validated numerically and experimentally for an automotive-grade aluminum alloy in a notched tensile test used for material characterization.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity→French-language works237,207→