MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108506009 · doi:10.1177/0021955x06063512

Fracture Toughness of High Density Polycarbonate Microcellular Foams

2006· article· en· W2108506009 on OpenAlex
Martin Bureau, Vipin Kumar

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 Cellular Plastics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Foaming and Composites
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersUniversity of Washington
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialPolycarbonateUltimate tensile strengthCoalescence (physics)ToughnessFracture toughnessModulus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microcellular foams (MCFs) of polycarbonate (PC) with relative densities of 0.9 and 0.7 (MCF-0.9 and MCF-0.7) are produced by solid-state foaming. Microstructural characterization shows that they have bi-modal distribution of spherical cells, with median cell sizes of 3–4 mm and 6–9 mm for both cell populations. Tensile testing shows that ultimate tensile strength and Young’s modulus approximately ranked with relative density, although MCF-0.9 has a modulus similar to the unfoamed PC (uPC). Toughness measurements show that, when compared to uPC on a critical stress intensity factor basis, MCF-0.9 shows no reduction in toughness and MCF-0.7 shows a 35% reduction. When compared to uPC on strain energy basis, 12–15% increases in toughness are measured for both MCFs. Their fracture occurs by multiple initiation, growth, and coalescence of voids formed at cells acting as stress concentrators. A fine cell morphology results in prolonged growth and coalescence phases, and thus improves fracture toughness.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.173 · 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