MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987679468 · doi:10.1002/pen.20235

Cyclic deformation behavior of an epoxy polymer. Part II: Predictions of viscoelastic constitutive models

2004· article· en· W1987679468 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymer Engineering and Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsViscoelasticityMaterials scienceConstitutive equationDeformation (meteorology)EpoxyNonlinear systemComposite materialStructural engineeringFinite element methodEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The experimental results presented in Part I of this study were used to evaluate the predictive capabilities of two viscoelastic constitutive models. One of the models, developed by Xia and Ellyin, is in a differential form. The other, which is a modified Schapery model by Lai and Bakker, is in an integral form. The results of the comparison indicate that the Xia‐Ellyin constitutive model simulated the experimental observations well. This was attributed to the existence of a general rule that delineates the loading and unloading parts of the cyclic response. The modified Schapery model was able to predict the general trends of the deformation behavior; however, it was unable to correctly simulate the unloading behavior. This difference became more pronounced when the applied cyclic stress/strain was high. At high applied loads, the material response became more nonlinear. POLYM. ENG. SCI. 45:103–113, 2005. © 2004 Society of Plastics Engineers

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.210 · 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