MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016619282 · doi:10.1115/ipack2003-35264

Effective Thermophysical Properties of Thermal Interface Materials: Part II — Experiments and Data

2003· article· en· W2016619282 on OpenAlexaff
I. Savija, J. R. Culham, M. M. Yovanovich

Bibliographic record

Venue2003 International Electronic Packaging Technical Conference and Exhibition, Volume 2 · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicThermal properties of materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermal conductivityMaterials scienceThermal greaseThermalThermal resistanceComposite materialModulusThermal contact conductanceThermal expansionInterface (matter)Thermal conductivity measurementThermodynamicsContact angle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new method for determining effective thermal conductivity and Young’s modulus in thermal interface materials is demonstrated. The method denoted as the Bulk Resistance Method (BRM) uses empircal thermal resistance data and analytical modeling to accurately predict thermophysical properties that account for insitu changes in material thickness due to external loading and thermal expansion. The BRM is demonstrated using commercially available sheets of Grafoil GTA. Tests were performed on thermal joints consisting of two Al 2024 machined surfaces with layers of Grafoil GTA in the interface. Test conditions included a vacuum environment, 0.2–6.5 MPa contact pressure, a nominal 50°C mean interface temperature and a continuous loading and unloading cycle. Test results indicated that the BRM consistently predicted thermal conductivity independent of the number of layers tested and that the predicted results were significantly lower than values reported using conventional ASTM test procedures.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations13
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2003 International Electronic Packaging Technical Conference and Exhibition, Volume 2Same topicThermal properties of materialsFrench-language works237,207