Machine learning predictions on fracture toughness of multiscale bio-nano-composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tailorability is an important advantage of composites. Incorporating new bio-reinforcements into composites can contribute to using agricultural wastes and creating tougher and more reliable materials. Nevertheless, the huge number of possible natural material combinations works against finding optimal composite designs. Here, machine learning was employed to effectively predict fracture toughness properties of multiscale bio-nano-composites. Charpy impact tests were conducted on composites with various combinations of two new bio fillers, pistachio shell powders, and fractal date seed particles, as well as nano-clays and short latania fibers, all which reinforce a poly(propylene)/ethylene–propylene–diene-monomer matrix. The measured energy absorptions obtained were used to calculate strain energy release rates as a fracture toughness parameter using linear elastic fracture mechanics and finite element analysis approaches. Despite the limited number of training data obtained from these impact tests and finite element analysis, the machine learning results were accurate for prediction and optimal design. This study applied the decision tree regressor and adaptive boosting regressor machine learning methods in contrast to the K-nearest neighbor regressor machine learning approach used in our previous study for heat deflection temperature predictions. Scanning electron microscopy, optical microscopy, and transmission electron microscopy were used to study the nano-clay dispersion and impact fracture morphology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".