A comparative analysis of a modified picture frame test for characterization of woven fabrics
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An experimental, finite‐element analysis framework is utilized to estimate the deformation state in a modified version of the picture frame test. During the analysis, the effect of fiber misalignment and the deformation heterogeneity in the tested fabric, a 2 × 2 PP/E‐Glass twill, is accounted for and a force prediction model is presented. Using an equivalent stress–strain normalization scheme, the comparison of the modified test with the conventional (original) picture frame and bias‐extension tests is also made, and results reveal similarities and differences that should receive attention in the identification of constitutive models of woven fabrics using these basic tests. Ideally, the trellising behavior should not change from one test to another but results show that in the presence of fiber misalignment, the modified picture frame test yields a behavior closer to that of the bias‐extension test, while the general form of the test's repeatability, measured by a signal‐to‐noise metric, remains similar to the original picture frame test. POLYM. COMPOS., 2010. © 2009 Society of Plastics Engineers
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it