MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891699950 · doi:10.3390/ma11091767

Experimental Investigation of Compression Properties of Composites with Printed Braiding Structure

2018· article· en· W2891699950 on OpenAlexaff
Zhengning Li, Chen Ge, Haichen Lyu, Frank Ko

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersDonghua University
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialComposite numberScanning electron microscopeTriethylene glycolCompression (physics)FabricationResin compositePolylactic acidPolymerPolymer chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A kind of composite was designed and additive manufacturing (AM) technology was utilized in the braiding structure fabrication. The printed polylactic acid (PLA) braiding structures were integrated with two types of resins (Epon 828 resin and urethane dimethacrylate/triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (UDMA/TEDGMA) resin) used as the matrix to make composite specimens. The compression test of the composite specimens showed that the printed PLA braiding structures had the effect of varying the compression properties of pure resins: it decreased the compression properties of Epon 828 resin, but increased those of UDMA/TEGDMA resin. Observing scanning electron microscope (SEM) images, it was noted that the decreasing and increasing in the compression properties of the specimens were related to the bonding compactness between the printed braiding structure and resins. Our results may suggest a new methods for the fast manufacturing of AM-based composites, further research directions, and potential applications of this kind of 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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207