MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376288164 · doi:10.18280/rcma.330207

Analysis of Impact Loading Response on the Composites Materials as a Function of Graphite Filler Content Using Taguchi Method

2023· article· en· W4376288164 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Drai Ahmed Smait, Farag Mahel Mohammed, Hamed A. Al-Falahi, Hussam Lefta Alwan, Sameer Alani

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue des composites et des matériaux avancés · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicTextile materials and evaluations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComposite materialFiller (materials)Materials scienceTaguchi methodsGraphite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The deflection and deformation behaviour of a 30% weight fraction glass-polyester sandwich panel was studied as a function of graphite filler quantity and impact velocity.Experiments based on Taguchi methods were carried out in order to collect data systematically.The panel is fastened on three sides and left free for the destructive test.By applying the impact force.The vibration data collector is used to measure the deflection (TVC 200).During the destructive test, the panel is additionally fastened to a solid base for stability.The steel hammer came crashing down from above.A Vernier calliper is used to measure the distortion.The tests were planned using Taguchi's L9 orthogonal array method.Examine the effects of impact force, height, and graphite filler content on low-velocity deflections and deformations using analysis of variance.The findings demonstrate that the mass is the primary parameter influencing the deflection, whereas the graphite filler is the primary parameter influencing the deformation.As a last step, a confirmation tests have been run to make sure the predicted experimental outcomes from those correlations were correct.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.210
GPT teacher head0.386
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue des composites et des matériaux avancésSame topicTextile materials and evaluationsFrench-language works237,207