MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410758163 · doi:10.3390/polym17111469

Characterization of Polycarbonate and Glass-Filled Polycarbonate Using Multi-Relaxation Test—Role of Glass Fiber on Viscous Behavior of Matrix in Fiber Composites

2025· article· en· W4410758163 on OpenAlexafffund
Jingchao Wang, P.‐Y. Ben Jar

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymers · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsPolycarbonateMaterials scienceComposite materialGlass fiberRelaxation (psychology)FiberMatrix (chemical analysis)Stress (linguistics)Stress relaxationDeformation (meteorology)ModulusCreep

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The work presented here describes an approach that separates the viscous stress from the quasi-static counterpart for polycarbonate (PC) and its short glass fiber composite (GF-PC), with the aim to characterize the influence of short glass fiber on the viscous behavior of PC as the matrix of GF-PC. A multi-relaxation (MR) test was used for the mechanical testing and a three-branch spring-dashpot model for the data analysis, using a genetic algorithm to establish 100 sets of fitting parameter values that enabled the three-branch model to regenerate the measured stress decay during relaxation. Using the spring modulus Kv,s of the short-term branch in the three-branch model, two groups for these fitting parameter values were established as a function of specimen displacement (named stroke) of GF-PC, one of which shows a trend that is similar to the trend of the corresponding fitting parameters for the pure PC, and thus is believed to reflect the influence of glass fiber on the PC matrix of GF-PC. The study concludes that the short glass fiber increases the short-term viscous stress, but its role on the long-term viscous stress is marginal.

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)0.000
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 score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

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 head0.249
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymersSame topicMechanical Behavior of CompositesFrench-language works237,207