MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006991845 · doi:10.1115/1.2931151

Constitutive Behavior of AA5754 Sheet Materials at Large Strains

2008· article· en· W2006991845 on OpenAlexafffund
Jidong Kang, David S. Wilkinson, Pengfei Wu, Mike Bruhis, Mukesh Jain, J.D. Embury, Raja K. Mishra

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering Materials and Technology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Forming Simulation Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityNorthern College
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGeneral Motors of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceShear (geology)Direct shear testAnisotropyComposite materialConstitutive equationFlow stressUniaxial tensionShear stressAlloyStructural engineeringFinite element methodUltimate tensile strengthEngineeringOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The constitutive behavior of both direct-chill cast (DC) and continuous cast (CC) AA5754 sheet materials has been investigated up to large strains using a modified shear test. The modified shear sample prevents rotation of the shear zone compared to the ASTM standard B831 test (2005, “Standard Test Method for Shear Testing of Thin Aluminum Alloy Products,” 2005 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA, Vol. 02.02, pp. 601–603). The results show that the effective stress and effective strain curves from shear tests match those obtained from uniaxial tension, but only by incorporating the material anisotropy using the Barlat–Lian yield function. The flow stresses of both materials saturate at large strains; however, the fracture strain of the CC material is significantly lower than that of the DC material.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations56
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering Materials and TechnologySame topicMetal Forming Simulation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207