MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281784947 · doi:10.1002/pc.26786

Effect of cyclic tests on the shape memory performance of <scp>GO‐CF</scp> hybrid‐reinforced <scp>SMPC</scp>

2022· article· en· W4281784947 on OpenAlexaff
Haiyin Guo, Yuqin Ma, Gangfeng Wang, Wei Xü, Tingting Zhao, Fei Li, Yi Xu

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymer Composites · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer composites and self-healing
Canadian institutionsPetro-Canada
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialScanning electron microscopeShape-memory alloyFiberUltimate tensile strengthShape-memory polymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study investigated the effect of cyclic tests on the shape memory performance of graphene oxide‐carbon fiber (GO‐CF) hybrid‐reinforced shape memory polymer composite (SMPC). The shape memory performance was evaluated by four indexes: shape fixation rate, shape recovery rate, recovery time, and maximum recovery force. The results showed that the service life of the GO‐CF hybrid‐reinforced SMPC prepared by the vacuum infiltration hot‐press forming experimental system process (VIHPS) was 16 cycles. After 16 repetitions, the shape fixation rate decreased by approximately 6.6% and the shape recovery rate decreased by approximately 14.0%. At this time, the shape recovery rate was lower than 90%. The recovery time increased by 62.2% and the maximum recovery force decreased by 70.1%. The maximum recovery force exhibited the highest performance attenuation. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to photograph and analyze the microstructures of the samples under various cyclic tests. It was concluded that the main factor affecting the shape memory performance of GO‐CF hybrid‐reinforced SMPC is the life of fiber bundle. During cyclic testing, the fiber was prone to kinks, tensile damage and other defects, which increased the probability of reducing the length of the fiber bundle. Therefore, the probability of fiber fracture was improved, and the shape memory performance of the GO‐CF hybrid‐reinforced SMPC was attenuated.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.225
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymer CompositesSame topicPolymer composites and self-healingFrench-language works237,207