MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Failure Prediction Maps for a Model Al <sub>2</sub> O <sub>3</sub> | <i>c</i> ‐ZrO <sub>2</sub> /Al <sub>2</sub> O <sub>3</sub> |Al <sub>2</sub> O <sub>3</sub> Brittle Polycrystalline Trilayer Composite

2003· article· en· W2108366959 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Ceramic Society · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvanced ceramic materials synthesis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexural strengthMaterials scienceComposite materialCeramicThermal expansionLayer (electronics)Surface (topology)AluminiumElastic modulusAluminium oxidesGeometryMathematicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Four failure zones are defined for the three‐layer model, Al 2 O 3 | c ‐Zr(8Y)O 2 /Al 2 O 3 |Al 2 O 3 ceramic composite in flexure as a function of inner‐layer composition and geometry. An optimum flexural strength is predicted based on thermal expansion coefficients and elastic moduli. Tunnel‐crack threshold and flexural strength predictions are supported by experimental evidence and displayed in failure‐map form. Many three‐dimensional surface graphs and cutaways of such are used to explain the ramifications (in terms of laminate strength) of choosing various layer thickness values and inner‐layer compositions for a representative trilayer laminate system.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.221 · 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