MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7100681886

and Applied Chemistry University of Toronto

2014· article· en· W7100681886 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsToughnessFracture toughnessUltimate tensile strengthDelamination (geology)EnthusiasmFracture (geology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hcture toughness of wood fibre reinforced polyethylene has been studied and several methods of improving this important property have been developed. A mechanistic hctun: model which incorporates the features of wood fibres and the fibrdmatrix interface was also developed. The modeling revealed that the key to enhancing the fncture toughness is to promote fibre pull-out during composiu: hcture. Bascd on the modeling, three novel techniques-proper fibre selection, fibrehnatrix interface modiication, and fibre alignment- wen: used to enhance the hcture toughness. The experimental alul~s confvmed the etrectiveness of thw three techniques. The fracture toughness of the composites was enhanced without sacrifcing other mechanical properties such as the tensile strength and modulus. Because the modifications suggested are less expensive than traditional methods, the modified WFRP producls an? commercially significant. Acknowledgments I would like to thank my supervisor. Prof. M. T. Kortschot, for hiis encouragement and guidance during the course of my studies. The insights and enthusiasm provided by Prof. J. J. Balatinecz have also contributed immeasurably to my understanding of wood fibre properties. Special thanks are extended to Prof. M. R. Piggotr for allowing the use of his laboratory facilities, and for the valuable discussions and suggestions about the fracture behavior of fibre composites. I would also like to thank Prof. S. Balke for his advice and suggestions.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207