MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cohesive strength and fracture toughness of atmospheric ice

2022· article· en· W4295277155 on OpenAlexaff
Valérian Palanque, Éric Villeneuve, Marc Budinger, Valérie Pommier‐Budinger, Gelareh Momen

Bibliographic record

VenueCold Regions Science and Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcingMaterials scienceFracture toughnessFracture (geology)ToughnessComposite materialGeotechnical engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims at defining key mechanical properties of atmospheric ice in order to improve the design of mechanical de-icing systems. Based on ice fracture mechanisms, the parameters of interest are the cohesive strength of the ice and its fracture toughness. An hybrid experimental/numerical vibrating method is used to measure those critical values. Parameters such as temperature and precipitation rate influence the ice density and ice samples are thus defined with respect to this parameter. First the cohesive strength of ice is measured over the entire range of ice density and a polynomial expression of the cohesive strength of ice is given as a function of this density. Then the fracture toughness is measured for a smaller range of density and an average critical value is given. Finally, the influence of the properties computed are discussed to assess the conditions of atmospheric ice mechanical removal and the challenges for the design of mechanical ice protection systems. The study tends to show that as its density decreases, ice is more difficult to remove mechanically.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCold Regions Science and TechnologySame topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207