MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249886886 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14656773.v1

Modification and integration of shear thickening fluids into high performance fabrics

2021· preprint· en· W4249886886 on OpenAlexaff
Jakub Mikolaj Szczepanski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicTextile materials and evaluations
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDilatantKevlarMaterials scienceComposite materialStabScanning electron microscopeShear (geology)Fourier transform infrared spectroscopyArmourEpoxyLayer (electronics)Chemical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Great interest has aroused in developing the next generation body armour based on the incorporation of a Shear Thickening Fluid (STF) into high performance fabrics (Kevlar®, UHMWPE). This innovative technoloy allows for the production of comfortable, flexible, lightweight, stab and ballistic resistant protective garments. This innovative technology allows for the production of comfortable, flexible, lightweight, stab and ballistic resistant protective garments. The furrent research was undertaken to evaluate the stab resistance and the chemical properties of types of high performance fabrics, Kevlar and Ultra Hight Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE), impregnated with several types of shear thickening fluids. The stab resistance properties of all samples were tested using drop tower and quasistatic testing apparatuses. Chemical compositions and microscopic structures were analyzed with Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy, Scanning Electron Microscopy and Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy. The current study demonstrated the importance of incorporating Shear Thickening Fluid into woven high performance fibres. The results clearly display a significant enhancement in puncture resistance ony of Kevlar® fabrics impregnated with different combination of STFs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTextile materials and evaluationsFrench-language works237,207