MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314518139 · doi:10.1021/am301459q

Quantitative Dispersion Analysis of Inclusions in Polymer Composites

2012· article· en· W2314518139 on OpenAlexaff
Mostafa Yourdkhani, Pascal Hubert

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Applied Materials & Interfaces · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCarbon Nanotubes in Composites
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceDispersion (optics)DispersityComposite materialPixelPolymerParticle (ecology)EpoxyNanocompositeMatrix (chemical analysis)Optical microscopeParticle sizeScanning electron microscopeOpticsArtificial intelligencePolymer chemistryComputer scienceChemical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The state of dispersion plays an important role on the performance of polymer nanocomposites. Dispersion is usually assessed based on the qualitative evaluation of microscopy micrographs. In this paper, a quantitative algorithm is introduced for analyzing the dispersion of inclusions in polymer composites using image analysis. In a binary image, on-pixels are considered as particle elements while off-pixels stand for matrix elements. To quantify the dispersion, the mean distance value between any matrix elements to their corresponding nearest neighboring particle element is measured. A dispersion index, DI, is then defined by comparing the image of interest with the associated uniformly dispersed case. Synthetic models were utilized to examine the sensitivity of the algorithm to various dispersity scenarios such as the effect of particle size, clustering, and cluster distribution. Optical micrographs of carbon nanotube modified epoxy with different states of dispersion were also employed to assess the applicability and functionality of the algorithm to real micrographs.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations82
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Applied Materials & InterfacesSame topicCarbon Nanotubes in CompositesFrench-language works237,207