MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Flexural Response of Cross-Ply Flax Fiber–Reinforced Polymer Skinned Foam Cylinders

2019· article· en· W2976127775 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas Tomlinson, Amir Fam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composites for Construction · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialFlexural strengthFiberPolymerCross plyComposite number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The flexural response of 12 2-m-long and 152-mm-diameter fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) skinned members with foam cores was investigated. Nine cylinders with various flax-FRP (FFRP) laminate arrangements and foam core densities were fabricated and tested in flexure; these were compared with three glass-FRP (GFRP) skinned specimens. Varying the foam density from 32 to 65 kg/m3 was found to be insignificant in FFRP skinned beams because their failure was governed by fiber tensile rupture. However, increasing the foam density increased the capacity of the GFRP skinned members that failed in compression. The most effective ways to increase strength-to-weight and stiffness-to-weight ratios of FFRP skinned cylinders are to increase the number of longitudinal fiber layers and decrease the foam core density. A FFRP cylinder with five longitudinal and three transverse layers was able to develop over 80% the strength-to-weight and stiffness-to-weight ratios as a reference GFRP cylinder, substantially higher than the 30%–50% values seen in coupon tests. Although the FFRP cylinder performed fairly well, further work on the member axial, impact, and durability resistance is recommended.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composites for ConstructionSame topicNatural Fiber Reinforced CompositesFrench-language works237,207