MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921419389 · doi:10.1080/15440478.2019.1588829

Post-Impact Compression Behavior of Natural Flax Fiber Composites

2019· article· en· W2921419389 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 Natural Fibers · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsCentre de Recherche Industrielle du QuébecUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialResidual strengthDelamination (geology)Composite numberImpact energyCompression (physics)Compressive strengthResidualDamage toleranceIzod impact strength testPenetration (warfare)FiberUltimate tensile strength

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the damage tolerance and damage evolution of the compressive failure of a non-woven flax composite using compression after impact (CAI) tests. The effect of impact energy and influence of factors, such as impact shape, delamination area, and impactor penetration, on compressive behavior was studied. The effect of impact shape and the impact energy on the residual strength was investigated and then correlated to the impact-induced damage, previously validated. An impact energy threshold of 3 J has shown a significant effect of the studied factors on the residual strength, in addition to a clear effect of the residual damage on the composite failure under the compression loading.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.262 · 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