Experimental validation of a regression‐based predictive model for elastic constants of open mesh tubular diamond‐braid composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The prediction of elastic constants of open‐mesh diamond braids has not been adequately studied. The objective of this work is to provide a further comparison of longitudinal elastic and shear moduli regression equations previously developed with experimental data from in‐house experiments; to determine the regression equations linearity limits; and to provide a validated predictive model for E x , E y and G xy for large open mesh composites. The results of the model match well with experimental findings for close‐mesh braided composites; however, for open‐mesh braided composites the results show differences. Also, the lower linearity limit (LLL) of the model for different fiber‐matrix systems were calculated and discussed. The comparison of initial experimental findings of the open‐mesh structures and the model suggests a full characterization of the model can be possible by increasing the experimental data pool in the literature which is currently very limited. POLYM. COMPOS., 2011. © 2010 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".