MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975587155 · doi:10.1177/0021998303037010001

Triaxial Woven Fabric (TWF) Composites with Open Holes (Part II): Verification of the Finite Element Models

2003· article· en· W1975587155 on OpenAlexafffund
Qilin Zhao, Suong V. Hoa, Paul Ouellette

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composite Materials · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicTextile materials and evaluations
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsMaterials scienceFinite element methodComposite materialDeformation (meteorology)Composite numberTransverse planeExtensometerPlain weaveYarnStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An elaborate finite element formulation was developed for the triaxial woven fabric (TWF) composites and this is presented in a parallel publication [Zhao, Q. and Hoa, S.V. Triaxial Woven Fabric (TWF) Composites With Open Holes (Part I): Finite Element Models For Analysis, Accepted, Journal of Composite Materials, this same issue.]. This paper presents examples using the finite elements developed and experimental work to obtain results for comparison purposes. One example deals with the TWF specimens subjected to loading along an axial yarn direction. The other example deals with other TWF specimens subjected to loading transverse to the axial yarn direction. Effects of the width and length of the sample are examined. Noncontact laser extensometer method is used for the deformation measurement. The significance and meaning of the results are discussed.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.277
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 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

Citations22
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composite MaterialsSame topicTextile materials and evaluationsFrench-language works237,207