MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096158160 · doi:10.1115/1.2840959

Modeling Strain Localization Using a Plane Stress Two-Particle Model and the Influence of Grain Level Matrix Inhomogeneity

2008· article· en· W2096158160 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering Materials and Technology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Forming Simulation Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGeneral Motors of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceMatrix (chemical analysis)Particle (ecology)HomogeneousStress (linguistics)Condensed matter physicsStrain (injury)Composite materialPhysicsStatistical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of dilute small particles on the development of strain localization under uniaxial tension has been studied by finite element analysis using a plane stress model with two small hard particles embedded in Al matrix. The influence of particle alignment and interparticle spacing in a homogeneous and inhomogeneous matrix are investigated. When the matrix material is a homogeneous continuum, there are small localization strains when close packed and aligned along the loading direction. In the case of an inhomogeneous matrix with grains of different strengths represented by their Taylor factors, the location of localization band is insensitive to the interparticle spacing, but mainly determined by grain-level inhomogeneity. This is because the particles are dilute and small compared with the matrix grains. The particles, however, can decrease the localization strains when they straddle the localization band.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.227 · 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