MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999959819 · doi:10.1515/ntrev-2019-0045

Materials characterization of advanced fillers for composites engineering applications

2019· article· en· W2999959819 on OpenAlexaff
Lubomí­r Lapčí­k, Martin Vašina, Barbora Lapčí­ková, David Hui, Eva Otyepková, Richard Greenwood, Kristian E. Waters, Jakub Vlček

Bibliographic record

VenueNanotechnology Reviews · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Nanocomposites and Properties
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMinisterstvo Průmyslu a Obchodu
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialCompactionPorositySurface energyRheologyWollastoniteCalcium carbonateSphere packing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Four different minerals were investigated; hollow spheres of calcium carbonate, platy mica, needle like wollastonite and glassy perlite and characterized via iGC for surface energy, Freeman powder rheology for flow characterization, cyclic uniaxial die compaction for modulus of elasticity and frequency dependent sound absorption properties. Particle surface energy and particle shape strongly affected the packing density of powder beds. In the case of higher porosity and thus lower bulk density, the powders acoustic absorption was higher in comparison with higher packing density materials. Surface energy profiles and surface energy distributions revealed clear convergence with powder rheology data, where the character of the powder flow at defined consolidation stresses was mirroring either the high cohesion powders properties connected with the high surface energy or powder free flowing characteristics, as reflected in low cohesion of the powder matrix.

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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNanotechnology ReviewsSame topicPolymer Nanocomposites and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207