MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074915614 · doi:10.1177/0731684412473359

Characterization of flax/epoxy prepregs before and after cure

2013· article· en· W2074915614 on OpenAlexaff
Steven Phillips, Joris Baets, Larry Lessard, Pascal Hubert, Ignace Verpoest

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialEpoxyVoid (composites)CrimpUltimate tensile strengthAbsorption of waterCompactionAutoclave

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims to better understand the nature of flax/epoxy hot melt prepreg systems as well as the mechanical properties of their cured composites. Two uncured systems were subjected to thermal gravimetric analysis and compaction experiments. Composites were then produced in an autoclave at pressures of 1, 3 and 5 bars. Void analysis was carried out on the cured laminates by optical microscopy and void contents ranging from below 1% to over 20% were obtained by image analysis. The primary source of voids was shown to be resin starvation based on the results of the compaction tests. Tensile properties were shown to be strongly degraded by fabric crimp. Short beam tests revealed a 16% decrease in interlaminar shear strength with a 3.5% increase in void content. Similarly, water absorption tests showed a significant increase in rate of absorption likely due to the presence of voids. The results suggest that in order for flax/epoxy prepregs to reach their full potential, the level of crimp and the evacuation of moisture during cure should be of primary concern.

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)0.000
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.195
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

Citations43
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Reinforced Plastics and CompositesSame topicNatural Fiber Reinforced CompositesFrench-language works237,207