MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399888550 · doi:10.3390/ma17133054

Tribological Properties of Composites Based on Single-Component Powdered Epoxy Matrix Filled with Graphite

2024· article· en· W4399888550 on OpenAlexaff
Jakub Smoleń, K. Stępień, Marta Mikuśkiewicz, Hanna Myalska‐Głowacka, Mateusz Kozioł, Marcin Godzierz, Henryk Janeczek, Jan Czakiert

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTribology and Wear Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpoxyComposite materialMaterials scienceTribologyGraphiteMatrix (chemical analysis)Component (thermodynamics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Composites based on powdered single-component epoxy matrix are an alternative technological solution for composites produced using liquid epoxy resins. This article describes in detail the process of producing graphite-reinforced composites for tribological applications. The advantages and disadvantages of technological processes where the matrix is a single-component epoxy powder were demonstrated, and the properties of the obtained materials were examined. A series of composite materials with the graphite filler with sizes below 10 μm and below 45 μm and weight additions of 5, 10, 20, 30% were produced. Mechanical tests and tribological tests conducted with the pin-on-block method were performed, and the mechanism of tribological wear was described. The conducted research allowed us to conclude that the incorporation of graphite, regardless of particle size, above 10% by weight results in a significant reduction in the friction coefficient (approximately 40-50% lower than in unfilled epoxy resin), which is beneficial in the production of cheap self-lubricating materials.

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 score0.003

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicTribology and Wear AnalysisFrench-language works237,207