Determination of plane‐strain fracture toughness of polyethylene copolymer based on the concept of essential work of fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Toughness and deformation capacity of six polyethylene copolymers in plane‐strain fracture were characterized using the concept of essential work of fracture (EWF). Two types of regression analysis were considered: one based on the traditional, total work of fracture, while the other on the energy partition to extract the portion that is relevant to the plane‐strain fracture. In particular, the latter analysis excludes energy that is for the final stretch of the surface flanks and produces toughness values that are smaller than those determined based on the total work of fracture. The study found that two types of analysis rank the copolymers in different orders. Based on the results from the energy‐partition approach, the article discusses the influence of material characteristics (molecular weight, branch concentration, density, etc.) on the plane‐strain fracture toughness of the polyethylene copolymers. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 2010. © 2009 Society of Plastics Engineers
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".