MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136523094 · doi:10.1002/pc.26041

Creep behavior of latania natural fiber‐reinforced epoxy composites at elevated temperatures

2021· article· en· W3136523094 on OpenAlexaff
Javad Ghorbani, Vahid Daghigh, Sadegh Rahmati, Mahdi Mahdian, Hamid Daghigh

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymer Composites · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialCreepEpoxyUltimate tensile strengthComposite numberNatural fiberScanning electron microscopeFiber

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Unique properties of natural fibers have made them strong sustainable materials in reinforcing composites. Latania natural fibers, recently compared to jute natural fibers, have shown a better mechanical performance in reinforcing polymer composites. Latania natural fiber‐reinforced epoxy (LFRE) laminated composites were studied under creep loads at elevated temperatures. The creep tests were performed at temperatures of 80 and 100°C and were subjected to 35% of the ultimate tensile strength. The failure time, initial strain, strain rate, and Larson–Miller constant for specimens were evaluated. The results suggested that change in temperature affected both the initial strain and the failure time. Scanning electron microscopy images were used to investigate the failure mechanisms of LFRE composites subjected to creep loads. The results of this study can be used as a benchmark in designing bio‐composite structures in which latania natural fibers are used.

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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymer CompositesSame topicNatural Fiber Reinforced CompositesFrench-language works237,207