MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of different solution heat treatments on the hot ductility of superalloys

2013· article· en· W1485336733 on OpenAlexaff
Joel Andersson, Göran Sjöberg, L. Viskari, M.C. Chaturvedi

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials Science and Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh Temperature Alloys and Creep
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceLiquationDuctility (Earth science)MetallurgyBrittlenessGrain boundarySuperalloyCrackingComposite materialAlloyMicrostructureCreep

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The susceptibility to heat affected zone cracking of Waspaloy has been investigated in terms of its hot ductility, measured as the reduction of area (RA). Gleeble testing with on-heating as well as on-cooling test cycles was carried out to illuminate the influence of different 4 h solution heat treatments between 996 and 1080°C. A ductility maximum of between 80 and 90%RA was found at 1050–1100°C for all conditions in the on-heating tests. Although the different heat treatment conditions showed similar macrohardness, the particle size and distribution of the γ′ and M23C6 phases differed, which significantly affected the on-heating ductility in the lower temperature test region. The ductile to brittle transition was initiated at 1100°C in the on-heating testing with indications of grain boundary liquation at the higher test temperatures. Ductility recovery, as measured in the on-cooling tests from 1240°C, was very limited with <30%RA for all conditions and test temperatures except for the 1080°C/4 h treatment, which exhibited 60%RA at 980°C.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials Science and TechnologySame topicHigh Temperature Alloys and CreepFrench-language works237,207