Indentation of poly(formaldehyde), reinforced nylons and poly(ethyl terephthalate)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Indentation tests were performed on flat coupons of poly(formaldehyde), three types of reinforced nylon and reinforced poly(ethyl terephthalate) using a device developed for a typical universal tensile testing machine. Spherical, conical and cylindrical indenters were selected for this study and the effects of indenter shape combined with the rate of indentation on the behavior of these materials were examined. The load‐depth relationship during the indentation process revealed the emergence of step‐like transitions at high indentation rates. The effects of the assessed parameters on the indentation resistance, as defined in this study, were analyzed. Interest was also focused on the investigation of the deformation work as well as the plastic work taking place for a total depth that incorporated both the skin and part of the bulk of the material. The modeling of the data was based on a previously developed approach and the introduction of a modified parameter that took not only the geometrical characteristics of the indenter into account but also the indentation depth. The proposed method has proven to be useful since a steady state of the indentation pressure was observed for all materials after a certain depth of indentation. This was valid for the results obtained using both conical and cylindrical indenters. Polym. Eng. Sci. 44:1439–1447, 2004. © 2004 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".