MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900637987 · doi:10.25071/10315/35417

Evaluation Of Anti-Icing Polymer Coatings

2018· article· en· W2900637987 on OpenAlexaff
Nick Tepylo, Xiao Huang, Marc Budinger, Valérie Pommier‐Budinger, Pierrick Rouset

Bibliographic record

VenueProgress in Canadian Mechanical Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcingPolymerMaterials scienceComputer scienceProcess engineeringEnvironmental scienceComposite materialEngineeringMeteorologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ice accumulation on aircraft, wind turbines and power lines can have detrimental effects, including efficiency reduction, mechanical failures and the creation of safety hazards.The aim of this study is to investigate the ice adhesion and wear resistance of three hydrophobic and icephobic coatings applied onto an aluminum substrate.Ethylene-tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE) coating was deposited using a plasma spray method while advanced liquid glass (ALG) and silicone R-2180 were both applied using dipping followed by furnace curing.Water was applied and frozen between both bare and coated surfaces using a custom built jig at -20 °C for 24 hours.The ice adhesion strength was measured using a lap shear test done inside an insulated chamber.The results showed low ice adhesion strengths for both ALG and silicone R-2180 coatings when compared to the bare surface.It was also found the silicone R-2180 coating had a higher wear rate than both the ETFE and ALG coatings.By combining icephobic coatings with an ultrasonic de-icing system, the power required by the system can be reduced, creating a low-powered active approach to the de-icing problem.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProgress in Canadian Mechanical EngineeringSame topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207