MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2013· article· en· W1485336733 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

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 M 23 C 6 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.

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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

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 head0.004
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