MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081595566 · doi:10.1002/app.12805

Polystyrene foams. II. Structure–impact properties relationships

2003· article· en· W2081595566 on OpenAlexaff
Saeed Doroudiani, Mark T. Kortschot

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Polymer Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Foaming and Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialPolystyreneMicrostructureDeformation (meteorology)BendingWork (physics)PolymerIzod impact strength testStress (linguistics)Ultimate tensile strengthThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the first part of this series of articles, the relations between the foaming conditions and the microstructure of expanded polystyrene (EPS) were explored. In this part, the effects of the foaming conditions and the microstructure of EPS on impact properties are discussed. Regression analysis was conducted on the data and expressions were developed to quantify these relationships. Moreover, the importance of the individual structural parameters was determined. Statistical analysis of the data showed that foaming time was the most important factor determining the impact strength, while foaming temperature was the most important factor controlling the specific impact strength. The deformation of cells at the crack tip, as a result of bending and/or buckling of cell walls, can increase the failure strain, which leads to an increase in failure energy. In expanded polymers, the majority of the absorbed energy during impact loading is dissipated as plastic work. The transition of plane stress conditions to plane strain conditions, due to expansion, can be considered as another source of toughening in EPS. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 90: 1421–1426, 2003

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations50
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Polymer ScienceSame topicPolymer Foaming and CompositesFrench-language works237,207