Performance assessment of textile composite using NDE and mechanical testing techniques
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – Quality assessment of textile composites needs to have sufficient knowledge about the various types of non-destructive testing techniques to detect defects as well as the effect of these defects on mechanical performance. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – The major approach of this paper was to evaluate the potential of two inspection techniques named ultrasounds, vibrations for detecting textile reinforcement defects in composites and evaluate the composite performance in the presence of a damage. Findings – Potential solutions have been identified to solve the issue of signal attenuation observed during C-scan ultrasonic testing, and the criticality of initial defects on static test was determined. Originality/value – The research work presented here has been a first attempt to apply the combination of different techniques in particular polar scan for the textile composite inspection. This will become more crucial as requirements for high performance and complex shape textile composite parts.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it