MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007875438 · doi:10.5539/jmsr.v4n2p13

Generic Basis Values and Acceptance Criteria for Composite Materials

2015· article· en· W2007875438 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials Science Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMaterial Selection and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsMaterials scienceBasis (linear algebra)Composite numberSet (abstract data type)Identification (biology)FiberProcess (computing)Process engineeringManufacturing engineeringComputer scienceComposite materialMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The approaches used to compute engineering design values (A-basis and B-basis) and acceptance sampling criteria were developed independently in the twentieth century. This was a practical approach for that time period but it isn’t working well for new materials with process dependent strength and modulus characteristics, such as carbon fiber composite materials. This paper lays out an approach designed to meet industry needs for identification of engineering design values applicable to the majority of manufacturing facilities using approved processing procedures for carbon-fiber composite materials along with corresponding acceptance criteria set to specific values for both the consumer’s and the producer’s risks.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.224
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.217 · 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