MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206308730 · doi:10.3390/textiles2010002

Characterizing Steam Penetration through Thermal Protective Fabric Materials

2022· article· en· W4206308730 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sumit Mandal, Guowen Song

Bibliographic record

VenueTextiles · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicTextile materials and evaluations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKillam TrustsUniversity of AlbertaOklahoma State University
KeywordsAir permeability specific surfaceTextileComposite materialMaterials scienceThermalPenetration (warfare)Environmental scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study performs an analysis of steam penetration through thermal protective fabric materials. Different, multilayered thermal protective fabrics were selected and tested in a laboratory-simulated steam exposure, and their steam protective performance (SPP) was measured in terms of the time required to generate second-degree burns on the bodies of wearers. Additionally, the total transmitted thermal energy (TTTE) through the fabrics during testing was measured. Through statistical analysis, it was established that fabric properties, namely air permeability and thickness, are the key factors that affect the SPP and TTTE; the relationship among the fabric properties, SPP, and TTTE is also summarized. Theoretically, it has been found that heat and mass (steam) transfer occur through fabrics in the course of steam exposure, which mainly affect the SPP and TTTE. This study could help textile/materials engineers to develop high performance thermal protective fabrics for the increased occupational health and safety of firefighters and industrial workers.

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 score0.003

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTextilesSame topicTextile materials and evaluationsFrench-language works237,207