MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Statistical Analysis of Epoxy Polymer Reinforced with Micro Ceramic Particles

2016· article· en· W2554293342 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arthur Bernardes Lara Melo, Luí­s Fernando Lucas Paiva, Júlio César dos Santos, Túlio Hallak Panzera, Rodrigo Teixeira Santos Freire

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research Updates in Polymer Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTribology and Wear Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialPortland cementCeramicCuring (chemistry)EpoxyCompressive strengthPolymerCementMass fractionQuartzFactorial experiment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A significant amount of research has been focused on the use of ceramic nano/micro particles to enhance the strength and stiffness of polymeric matrices. This work evaluates the effect of Portland cement or crystalline silica (quartz) particle inclusions into epoxy polymer. Two experiments were conducted based on a full factorial design analysis. Experiment I investigated the effect of Portland cement amount (ASTM III), two types of hardeners (HY 951 and 956) and two curing times (7 and 28 days) on the compressive behaviour and density of particulate composites. Experiment II evaluated the incorporation of quartz or cement particles by mixing different mass fraction levels, considering 28 days of curing time and HY 951 hardener. The samples were prepared in a randomized manufacturing process and tested in compression. The mechanical properties were significantly affected by the type of hardener used. Both particles can enhance the compressive strength and stiffness of the 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research Updates in Polymer ScienceSame topicTribology and Wear AnalysisFrench-language works237,207