MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158822631 · doi:10.3390/met2030229

Rate Dependence of the Compressive Response of Ti Foams

2012· article· en· W2158822631 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Petros Siegkas, Vito L. Tagarielli, Nik Petrinić, Louis‐Philippe Lefebvre

Bibliographic record

VenueMetals · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCellular and Composite Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of Oxford
KeywordsMaterials scienceStrain rateMicrostructureComposite materialRelative densityScanning electron microscopeCompressive strengthCompression (physics)TitaniumHardening (computing)Strain hardening exponentStrain (injury)Metallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Titanium foams of relative density ranging from 0.3 to 0.9 were produced by titanium powder sintering procedures and tested in uniaxial compression at strain rates ranging from 0.01 to 2,000 s−1. The material microstructure was examined by X-ray tomography and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) observations. The foams investigated are strain rate sensitive, with both the yield stress and the strain hardening increasing with applied strain rate, and the strain rate sensitivity is more pronounced in foams of lower relative density. Finite element simulations were conducted modelling explicitly the material’s microstructure at the micron level, via a 3D Voronoi tessellation. Low and high strain rate simulations were conducted in order to predict the material’s compressive response, employing both rate-dependant and rate-independent constitutive models. Results from numerical analyses suggest that the primary source of rate sensitivity is represented by the intrinsic sensitivity of the foam’s parent material.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMetalsSame topicCellular and Composite StructuresFrench-language works237,207