MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033221339 · doi:10.1080/00150190008223670

Measuring fracture toughness of piezoceramics by vickers indentation under the influence of electric fields

2000· article· en· W2033221339 on OpenAlexfundno aff
C. T. Sun, S. B. Park

Bibliographic record

VenueFerroelectrics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal and Thin Film Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchUniversity of WindsorPurdue University
KeywordsIndentationMaterials scienceFracture toughnessComposite materialVickers hardness testStrain energy release ratePiezoelectricityToughnessMicrostructure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Vickers indentation technique was used to determine the apparent fracture toughness of PZT-4 piezoceramic under the influence of electric fields. The toughness was measured in terms of the mechanical strain energy release rate. Using the analytical mechanical strain energy release rate for an infinite piezoelectric medium with a center crack and far field in-plane mechanical and electrical loadings, the mechanical strain energy release rate was obtained for Vickers indentation. The effect of the electric field was included. The proposed formula was evaluated with the experimental results. It was found that the fracture toughness depended on the indentation force. Vickers indentation tests were also performed on depoled PZT-4 specimens; these test results indicated that the fracture toughness of depoled PZT-4 was also dependent on the indentation force. To eliminate the indentation force dependence, a modified stress intensity formula based on Vickers indentation was proposed.

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
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.187 · 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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFerroelectricsSame topicMetal and Thin Film MechanicsFrench-language works237,207