MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4298081238 · doi:10.5957/icetech-2010-152

Assessment of Lifeboat Laminate Strength

2010· article· en· W4298081238 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Gifford, Allison Kennedy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltimate tensile strengthIzod impact strength testWork (physics)Strength of materialsMaterials scienceMechanical strengthComposite materialComputer scienceStructural engineeringMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this work was to assess the material strength of conventional lifeboat composites and to examine the effect that particular factors have on the strength, using design of experiments methods. The research was a direct response to the growing need for information pertaining to the performance of lifeboats in ice-covered waters. Evaluating the strength of lifeboat laminates was completed through two test programs. The first focused on assessing the tensile strength while the second examined the impact strength.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.244
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Integrity and Reliability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207