Machine learning predictions on fracture toughness of multiscale bio-nano-composites
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it