MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2415043319 · doi:10.1002/fam.2373

Measurement of thermophysical properties of fire‐resistive and reactive materials. Urgent problems and solutions

2016· article· en· W2415043319 on OpenAlexaff
Efim Litovsky, V. Issoupov, Jacob I. Kleiman

Bibliographic record

VenueFire and Materials · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire dynamics and safety research
Canadian institutionsIntegrity Testing Laboratory (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermal conductivityResistive touchscreenMaterials scienceCeramicCalorimeter (particle physics)Material propertiesThermal massNuclear engineeringTransient (computer programming)Forensic engineeringThermalMechanical engineeringComposite materialThermodynamicsEngineeringComputer scienceElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The ASTM Standard Test Method E2584 ‘Standard Practice for Thermal Conductivity of Materials Using a Thermal Capacitance (Slug) Calorimeter’ was developed by National Institute of Standards and Technology to measure thermal conductivity of fire‐resistive and reactive materials during monotonic heating and cooling. The heating regime adopted in ASTM E2584 is very reasonable because change of materials' composition and structure during a fire can depend on kinetic factors and thermal story of the materials. The main problem in experimental measurements of thermophysical properties is the impossibility of using standard steady‐state methods during time‐dependent processes in materials accompanied by latent heat effect. Using standard transient methods, such as hot wire or laser flash methods, is also incorrect, because the transient measurement heat process can be started only after steady‐state temperature field is established in the sample, that is, at the time when the involved physical or chemical processes could be finished. The objectives of this paper are to review and to analyze scientific problems to be taken into account in the revised version of ASTM E2584 Standard. Examples of experimental results are presented for measurement of thermophysical properties during chemical and physical processes in solid materials, powders, metals, and ceramic materials; building materials during fire; and so on. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.000
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.171 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFire and MaterialsSame topicFire dynamics and safety researchFrench-language works237,207