MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Punch in a Punch: Validating FLC and fracture models for severe strain path changes

2025· article· en· W4410175485 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

VenueMATEC Web of Conferences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Forming Simulation Techniques
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFracture (geology)Structural engineeringPath (computing)Strain (injury)Materials scienceForensic engineeringComposite materialComputer scienceEngineeringMedicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While generating experimental linear loading strain paths is still required for the identification of Forming and Fracture Limit Curves, non-linear loading paths are necessary to validate models for industrial applications. Commonly non-linear loading paths are achieved by interrupting oversized uniaxial or biaxial tensile experiments and extracting pre-strained specimens for further forming or fracture testing. Due to the inherent multiple manufacturing steps, this method is challenging to automate, which denies the generation of large datasets for deep analysis. The present study demonstrates that severely non-linear loading paths can be obtained in a high-throughput manner from a single specimen by means of a telescopic forming approach—specifically, a punch-in-a-punch system—within an automated Nakazima setup. Two steels and two aluminium alloys are tested, each using sets of seven Nakazima specimens, subjected to a two-step forming process. The first step is an interrupted Marciniak forming test. The displacement is then stopped and held while a secondary piston is moved out of the Marciniak punch's inner part, effectively generating a second loading path.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.241 · 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