HRTEM Observation and Atomic Modeling of α/β Interphase Boundary in a Ti-22V-4Al Alloy
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to study interface boundary structures, a three dimensional Near-Coincidence Site lattice (Near-CSL) model based on Bollmann’s O-lattice method has been proposed. Previous studies have shown that intragranular α-phase precipitates in a Ti–22V–4Al alloy have a morphology of lath-like, with two well defined facet planes. A detailed TEM observation of the laths has been made in this study and the results correlated to the present analysis. Accommodation mechanism of misfit dislocations and the Burgers vector of the defects observed at the broad face and side facet plane of the intragranular α-phase precipitates have been determined. The structural ledges at the side facet, as predicted by the present analysis, is consistent with HRTEM observation. The Burgers vector of misfit dislocations at the broad face is in good agreement with that previously reported for a Zr–2.6Nb alloy, that has almost the same lattice parameter ratio as the Ti–22V–4Al alloy used in the present study. Although the Burgers vector of the defects on the broad face can be determined by HRTEM observation, the boundary plane is not well defined. However, it can be demonstrated that the interface boundary structure of the broad face can be rationalized from the results of both the Near-CSL analysis and the HRTEM observations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it