MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997002530 · doi:10.1039/c4sm01803f

Structure characterisation method for ideal and non-ideal twisted plywoods

2014· article· en· W1997002530 on OpenAlexaff
Oscar F. Aguilar Gutierrez, Alejandro D. Rey

Bibliographic record

VenueSoft Matter · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsIdeal (ethics)Liquid crystalMaterials scienceCholesteric liquid crystalIsotropyLiquid-crystal displayHelix (gastropod)CrystallographyBiological systemOpticsPhysicsChemistryOptoelectronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The twisted plywood architecture, known as the Bouligand structure, is a ubiquitous biological and synthetic fibrous composite structure, analogous to that of cholesteric liquid crystals. Twisted plywoods can show ideal or non-ideal structures and are formed via equilibrium or non-equilibrium liquid crystal self-assembly processes. A key to the structure characterisation of plywood films is the specification of the local and global helix vector h(x) and pitch p(x) of the cholesteric order. Previous extensive work demonstrated that oblique cuts of the plywood give rise to arc-patterns that depend both on the unknown incision angle α and the unknown pitch p(x), thus making the precise 3D cholesteric reconstruction ambiguous. In this paper we present an efficient method based on geometric modelling and new visualization software that determines unambiguously the cholesteric pitch under spatially homogeneous and heterogeneous conditions. The method is applied to films that display two-pitch and spatially non-homogenous structures, as sometimes observed under equilibrium and non-equilibrium self-assembly. The method can be extended to other biological materials such as cornea-like, cylindrical, and various cuticle plywoods.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoft MatterSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207