MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124319824 · doi:10.5897/jmer.9000004

Adhesive bonded single lap and over-lap joints of C/C, C/C-SiC composites and titanium alloy

2011· article· en· W2124319824 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMechanical Engineering Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced materials and composites
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialAdhesiveAlloyLap jointScanning electron microscopeComposite numberTitaniumShear strength (soil)Silicon carbideTitanium carbideJoint (building)Carbon fibersCeramicCarbideMetallurgyLayer (electronics)Structural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon-carbon (C/C), carbon-carbon-silicon carbide (C/C-SiC) composites and titanium alloy substrates were bonded in single lap and overlap joints with phenolic resin to study the differences in joint strength of two similar and dissimilar materials under shear load. The results indicate that the bonding strength of single lap joint of C/C, C/C-SiC is more than the other ceramic and titanium alloy, whereas Ti-Ti bonded over lap joints show remarkable improvement in similar and dissimilar substrates. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) describes the surface morphology and indicates the bonded zone fractured in the form of thin film which shows strong interaction in between two surfaces.   Key words: C/C composite, C/C-SiC composite, titanium alloy, adhesive joints, bonding strength.

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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.216 · 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