MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097775173 · doi:10.1115/detc2020-22565

Experimental Study of Mullins Effect in Natural Rubber for Different Stretch Conditions

2020· article· en· W3097775173 on OpenAlexaff
Elli Gkouti, Burak Yenigün, Krystof Jankowski, Aleksander Czekanski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSports Dynamics and Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSofteningMaterials scienceStress relaxationNatural rubberComposite materialTension (geology)Stress (linguistics)Relaxation (psychology)ElastomerUltimate tensile strengthCreep

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We subjected rubber coupons to cyclical uniaxial tension to investigate the softening effect, where the primary loading at its initial position was followed by additional unloading and reloading. Less stress was required upon reloading than that required in the previous loading for the same degree of stretch, reached on the first loading. This stress softening is significant when reloading follows virgin loading. The magnitude of stress softening is related to the maximum stretch elastomers can achieve in each cycle. To investigate this phenomenon, rubber coupons were subjected to four cycles of simple tension until the desired stretch was reached. We expected that several tests under the same conditions would provide almost identical results. However, we observed different stress requirements for different degrees of stretch when multiple cycles of the same stretch were performed. For three different experimental tests of the same amount of stretch, we saw huge differences in each cycle of loading-relaxation-reloading, a phenomenon that was more obvious during stress relaxation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.243
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSports Dynamics and BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207