MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212930492 · doi:10.1002/9781119420507.ch9

Stress Relaxation at High Temperatures

2022· other· en· W4212930492 on OpenAlexaff
Nirmal K. Sinha, Shoma Sinha

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreepStress relaxationMaterials scienceRelaxation (psychology)Stress (linguistics)Constant (computer programming)CrystalliteMechanicsForensic engineeringComposite materialMetallurgyEngineeringPhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter describes experimental and conventional analytical results for stress relaxation test (SRT). It highlights the fundamental limitations of conventional analytical approaches. The chapter presents available SRT data on grain-size and temperature effects on stress relaxation (SR) in titanium-base aerospace alloys can be explained on the ice-based forecasting. It examines a significant effort to strengthen the understanding of SRTs and stress relaxation processes of broader interests, which is important to metal-working, forming technology, rock mechanics, ice engineering, and geophysical activities involving high temperatures. For thermally activated, linearly stress-dependent viscous response in materials, like glass, SRT has been found to provide results comparable to those obtained from constant-stress creep tests. The constant strain “SR” in polycrystalline ice, as a function of strain, temperature, and grain size, has been formulated on the basis of a three-component, constant stress, elasto—delayed-elastic–viscous model or consisting of elastic, delayed elastic, and viscous strain.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207