MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Compressive strength and hardness of metal matrix syntactic foams

2010· article· en· W2154607858 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Imre Norbert Orbulov, Árpád Németh, János Dobránszky

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCellular and Composite Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersManitoba Medical Service Foundation
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialSyntactic foamStiffnessCompressive strengthDrop (telecommunication)MetalMatrix (chemical analysis)Metallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Six types of metal matrix syntactic foams (MMSFs) were produced by pressure infiltration technique. The foams were investigated by upsetting tests at increased (220°C) and at room (25°C) temperature. The parameters were the constituents of the composites and the aspect ratio (height-diameter ratio, H/D) of the specimens. The characteristic properties were: the compressive strength, the fracture strain, the structural stiffness of the foams and the absorbed energy. The strength, the strain and the energy were decreased while the stiffness was increased by increasing the H/D. Increased temperature caused ~25 % drop in the strength and in the stiffness. Macrohardness, depth sensitive and dynamic hardness tests were also performed on MMSF blocks: macrohardness is a structural property and independent from the matrix material. The depth sensitive hardness is sensitive to the deformation capability of the matrix and to a possible change reaction. The dynamic hardnesses of the MMSFs were higher than the hardness of the matrices and this is a microballoon related property.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicCellular and Composite StructuresFrench-language works237,207