MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025659817 · doi:10.1002/mawe.202000005

Ice stress‐strain curve prediction in uniaxial compression loading in the objective of atmospheric icing risk evaluation

2020· article· en· W3025659817 on OpenAlexaff
Mahdiyeh Seifaddini, Ali Saeidi, M. Farzaneh

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterialwissenschaft und Werkstofftechnik · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcingMaterials scienceBrittlenessStrain rateGeotechnical engineeringCompression (physics)IsotropyMechanicsDeformation (meteorology)Composite materialGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Atmospheric icing is a major cause of damage to electric power networks. During ice storms, “ice shedding off” cables and conductors can lead to major damage to power systems, mostly by mechanical failure. The brittleness of ice might be its most important and critical property possibly leading to hazardous events in urban regions, and involving equipment such as electrical power lines. To avoid or reduce the risks from this phenomenon, it is necessary to understand the mechanical behavior of ice, including ice strain, as well as its maximal strength and residual strength. The behavior of ice depends mainly on the applied stress and strain rate, as well as temperature, salinity, porosity, and particle size. As a fundamental subject on the deformation behavior of ice, the simple case of polycrystalline isotropic ice was chosen in this study. A methodology is developed to determine the stress‐strain curve for ice as a function of temperature and several uniaxial compression loading conditions. Mathematical relations are developed for several loading conditions and temperature. The results of this research allow to predict the maximal and residual strength of ice, as functions of strain rate and temperature.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialwissenschaft und WerkstofftechnikSame topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207