MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060931887 · doi:10.1107/s002188980604369x

Determination of the morphological texture of the fibres in a composite material made from a textile of AISI 316L fibres using a mixed deconvolution/positivity method

2007· article· en· W2060931887 on OpenAlexaff
G. Langelaan, Sophie Ryelandt, J.H. Root, P. Van Houtte

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Crystallography · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComposite Material Mechanics
Canadian institutionsNovelis (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeconvolutionMaterials scienceTexture (cosmology)Composite materialCastingComposite numberDiffractionTextileAlloyResolution (logic)OpticsComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The orientation distribution or `morphological texture function' (MTF) of the fibres is determined from measurements of the crystallographic texture of the fibres themselves. From neutron diffraction pole-figure measurements of the fibres in the composite and X-ray diffraction pole figures of the individual fibres, the MTF is determined by a deconvolution. To account for errors in the expansion coefficients due to measurement uncertainties, the deconvolution is performed simultaneously with a positivity criterion in the form of a set of linear equations which may be solved by a least-squares method. This approach is validated using a model system of AISI 316L stainless-steel fibres in an Al–13 wt% Si eutectic casting alloy. The fibres had been spun into yarns and subsequently woven to form a textile. The composite was made by infiltrating a `brick' containing several layers of the textile with the Al alloy. The results of the deconvolution procedure show that the method indeed yields the expected morphological texture. The so-determined MTF is resolved to an angular resolution not attainable by other methods. It also provides a very good estimate of the volume fractions of the different texture components.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.230
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied CrystallographySame topicComposite Material MechanicsFrench-language works237,207