MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914403114 · doi:10.1177/096369350801700205

Delamination Resistance of Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Plate Subjected to Out-of-Plane Loading

2008· article· en· W2914403114 on OpenAlexaff
Takashi Kuboki, P.‐Y. Ben Jar, Jingyi Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Composites Letters · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialDelamination (geology)Flexural strengthIndentationFibre-reinforced plasticBeam (structure)Structural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Delamination resistance of fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) was characterized directly from plates that were subjected to out-of-plane loading. Plate specimens used in the study were designed to be mainly unidirectional (0°), with a single layer containing fibre in the orthogonal direction (90°) inserted at the mid-thickness. The test set-up followed the description given in ASTM D3763-02, but using indenter of large radius to minimize the indentation damage. The study found that the out-of-plane loading on the top surface generated firstly a flexural splitting crack in the 0° direction from the bottom half of the plate. The splitting crack facilitated the delamination growth, resulting in a peanut-shaped area in the interlaminar region underneath the 90° layer. The delamination resistance was characterized using the rate of energy loss per unit area of delamination growth, of which the value was found to be consistent with that determined previously, using flexural tests on beam-type specimens.

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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced Composites LettersSame topicMechanical Behavior of CompositesFrench-language works237,207