MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2461909756 · doi:10.1177/096739110601400303

Predicting the Elastic Modulus of Hybrid Fibre Reinforced Thermoplastics

2006· article· en· W2461909756 on OpenAlexaff
Angelo G. Facca, Mark T. Kortschot, Ning Yan

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymers and Polymer Composites · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComposite materialMaterials scienceStiffnessModulusUltimate tensile strengthSynthetic fiberHigh-density polyethyleneYoung's modulusGlass fiberPolyethyleneFiber

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hybrid fibre reinforced thermoplastics (containing more than one type of fibre) offer several design possibilities that do not exist with single fibre reinforced systems. Although there are extensive experimental data available in the literature on a variety of hybrid systems, a reliable and simple analytical model to predict the stiffness of these composites is not available. In this study, a modification of the hybrid rule of mixtures equation is developed to determine the stiffness properties of hybrid composites. Experimental data from single fibre reinforced thermoplastics forms the basis of the modification. Combinations of E-glass, hemp and hardwood flour were blended into high-density polyethylene in total fibre loadings of 10 to 60wt% to produce hybrid composites. The density and Young's modulus of the hybrid composites fell between the extreme values obtained for the single fibre composites. The modified rule of hybrid mixtures equation was found to adequately predict the tensile modulus of the hybrid composites.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymers and Polymer CompositesSame topicNatural Fiber Reinforced CompositesFrench-language works237,207