MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076180744 · doi:10.5539/jmsr.v1n3p117

Fracture Toughness of Multi Walled Carbon Nano Tubes Modfied Polymer Composite in Mode - I

2012· article· en· W2076180744 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
K. Sivakumar, G. Raghava, A. Joseph Stanley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials Science Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCarbon Nanotubes in Composites
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialFracture toughnessScanning electron microscopeNano-Fracture (geology)PolymerComposite numberDelamination (geology)CantileverDispersion (optics)Carbon fibersStrain energy release rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present work Multi Walled Carbon Nano Tubes were dispersed into Ly 566 with 1%, 3% and 5% by weight and nano composites were manufactured using the wet-layup technique in two different stacking sequences namely 0/90 and 0/0. For the dispersion of the nano tubes into the polymer an ultra sonic bath was utilized to sonicate the Multi Walled Carbon Nano Tubes. The property fracture toughness has been characterized by a using standard double cantilever beam (DCB) specimen to estimate the fracture parameter namely GIC. According to the tests the nano tube filling of the matrix of the composites has a beneficial effect on their interlaminar properties and the strain energy release rate increased significantly over the virgin samples. The broken fracture surfaces of the failed samples were examined with a high resolution scanning electron microscope.

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 score0.005

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials Science ResearchSame topicCarbon Nanotubes in CompositesFrench-language works237,207