MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066480700 · doi:10.1177/1099636213515507

Effect of grain size on the optimal architecture of electrodeposited metal/polymer microtrusses

2014· article· en· W2066480700 on OpenAlexaff
AT Lausic, Craig A. Steeves, GD Hibbard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sandwich Structures & Materials · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCellular and Composite Structures
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Christian StudiesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNanocrystalline materialGrain sizeMaterials scienceCrystallitePolymerNickelMetalComposite materialMetallurgyNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nanocrystalline microtruss materials are novel cellular hybrids of metal and polymer produced by electrodepositing thin coatings of nanocrystalline metal over rapid prototyped polymer preforms. This study develops an optimisation method for the architectural design of electrodeposited metal/polymer composite microtrusses used as cores in sandwich beams. For an optimally designed structure employing conventional polycrystalline nickel, a direct substitution of nanocrystalline nickel will improve structural performance; however, it is likely that the structure will also become significantly sub-optimal. Achieving optimal design with nanocrystalline nickel entails large geometric changes from the conventional polycrystalline case. The same applies if the polymer preform is removed after electrodeposition. The strong connection between optimal architecture and grain size was therefore examined for the limiting cases of polymer-filled and hollow microtrusses. It was found that grain size reduction was more important than polymer preform removal such that grain size effects dominate over the majority of microtruss design space.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sandwich Structures & MaterialsSame topicCellular and Composite StructuresFrench-language works237,207