MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200049493 · doi:10.1002/adma.202109029

Advancing the Mechanical Performance of Glasses: Perspectives and Challenges

2021· review· en· W4200049493 on OpenAlexafffund
Lothar Wondraczek, Eran Bouchbinder, Allen J. Ehrlicher, John C. Mauro, Roman Sajzew, Morten M. Smedskjær

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Materials · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicBuilding materials and conservation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsEuropean Commission
KeywordsMaterials scienceNanotechnologyEngineering ethicsEngineering physicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glasses are materials that lack a crystalline microstructure and long-range atomic order. Instead, they feature heterogeneity and disorder on superstructural scales, which have profound consequences for their elastic response, material strength, fracture toughness, and the characteristics of dynamic fracture. These structure-property relations present a rich field of study in fundamental glass physics and are also becoming increasingly important in the design of modern materials with improved mechanical performance. A first step in this direction involves glass-like materials that retain optical transparency and the haptics of classical glass products, while overcoming the limitations of brittleness. Among these, novel types of oxide glasses, hybrid glasses, phase-separated glasses, and bioinspired glass-polymer composites hold significant promise. Such materials are designed from the bottom-up, building on structure-property relations, modeling of stresses and strains at relevant length scales, and machine learning predictions. Their fabrication requires a more scientifically driven approach to materials design and processing, building on the physics of structural disorder and its consequences for structural rearrangements, defect initiation, and dynamic fracture in response to mechanical load. In this article, a perspective is provided on this highly interdisciplinary field of research in terms of its most recent challenges and opportunities.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations152
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced MaterialsSame topicBuilding materials and conservationFrench-language works237,207