MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990014966 · doi:10.1177/0021998307076489

On the Electrical Conductivity of Particulate Composites

2007· article· en· W1990014966 on OpenAlexafffund
Rajinder Pal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composite Materials · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComposite Material Mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceParticulatesComposite materialElectrical resistivity and conductivityVolume fractionPhase (matter)Dispersion (optics)Composite numberFiller (materials)ConductivityMatrix (chemical analysis)EpoxyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two new equations are developed for effective electrical conductivity of concentrated particulate composites using a differential scheme along with the solution of an infinitely dilute dispersion of particles in a continuous matrix. The proposed equations are evaluated using 16 sets of experimental data on the electrical conductivity of two-phase particulate systems. The following model developed in the paper describes the experimental data very well: (σ/σm)1/3 (σd — σm)/ (σd — σ) = (1 — φ/φm )—αφm ) where σ, σm and σd are electrical conductivities of composite, matrix, and dispersed phase (filler) respectively, φ is volume fraction of filler, φm is the maximum packing volume fraction of filler, and α is a constant of the order of unity. In the special case of α = 1 and φm = 1, this model reduces to the well-known Bruggeman equation for the electrical conductivity of two-phase particulate systems. The predictions of the proposed model are significantly different from the predictions of the existing general effective media (GEM) model.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.228
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations26
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composite MaterialsSame topicComposite Material MechanicsFrench-language works237,207