MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392129595 · doi:10.15376/frc.2009.2.931

The Effect of Fibre Orientation on the Zero-span Testing of Paper

2009· article· en· W4392129595 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaterial Properties and Processing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsSpan (engineering)Zero (linguistics)Orientation (vector space)Computer scienceStructural engineeringMathematicsEngineeringGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, a new technique for producing almost fully aligned paper sheets was developed, and the resulting sheets were used to test the validity of the theory most commonly used to relate zero-span tensile strength to individual fibre strength. The standard theory predicts that a zero-span test of a sheet with randomly oriented fibres should yield a breaking load equal to 3/8 of the load that would be observed if all the fibres were aligned in the direction of loading. It is widely used, in spite of the fact that the underlying assumption of affine deformation is questionable under true zero-span conditions. The results obtained here suggest that the fibre strength may be overestimated because inclined fibres in a zero-span grip actually contribute more than the theory predicts. However, the results also suggest that this effect may be confounded because other factors lead to a variable contribution of individual fibres to the zero-span strength of the sheet.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.201
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMaterial Properties and ProcessingFrench-language works237,207