MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892376960 · doi:10.1002/app.47045

A quantitative method to compare the effect of thermal aging on the mechanical performance of fire protective fabrics

2018· article· en· W2892376960 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Polymer Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicTextile materials and evaluations
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversity of Alberta
FundersMitacsÉcole de technologie supérieure
KeywordsArrhenius equationMaterials scienceSuperposition principleComposite materialThermalStructural engineeringThermodynamicsMathematicsActivation energyEngineeringChemistryPhysicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT A method has been proposed to provide a means to compare in a quantitative and comprehensive way the mechanical performance of fire protective fabrics under long‐term thermal exposure. These high‐performance materials experience a reduction in their performance overtime due to the various conditions they are exposed to during the lifetime of the clothing. The proposed method consists in a system of two equations fitting the time–temperature‐performance data: the Arrhenius model combined with the time–temperature superposition principle, and the three‐parameter Hill equation. The result of the data analysis using this method is provided in terms of four parameters: the temperature effect, the time rate, the degradation midpoint time, and the ultimate strength. It was used to compare the effect of accelerated thermal aging on the tear strength of seven different fabrics used in fire protective clothing. In all cases, a very good agreement was observed with both the Arrhenius model and the Hill equation. However, none of the fabrics studied appeared to stand as displaying all the characteristics that would be ideal for long‐term fire protection. The best solution is thus a compromise that will depend on the type of activity conducted and the type of conditions experienced. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2019 , 136 , 47045.

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.

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)0.006
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.304 · 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