MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1506376242

Effect of aluminide coatings and wheat handling parameters on erosion in wheat storage bins.

2007· article· en· W1506376242 on OpenAlexaff
Hamzeh Ahmadi, A M Borgheei, Reza Alimardani, A. Rajabeepour, D. Y. Lee

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicErosion and Abrasive Machining
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAluminideMaterials scienceSlurryMetallurgyCoatingErosionTribometerSubstrate (aquarium)HardfacingComposite materialTribologyWear resistanceAlloyIntermetallicGeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies demonstrate that aluminide coatings are beneficial to wear and erosion resistance and also that oxygen-active elements such as yttrium can remarkably improve this resistance. In this research, the micro-hardness of the aluminide coatings with and without yttrium on 1045 steel was investigated using a micro-mechanical probe. Wear of the samples was measured using a pin-on-disk tribometer. The erosion loss of specimens against soft and hard wheat was also evaluated using a slurry erosion test machine. The data was analyzed statistically using a 3-factor completely randomized design to study the effect of wheat varieties (soft and hard wheat), moisture content at three levels (10±0.5, 15±1.5, and 20±2 % (wet basis)), and rotary velocity of the slurry erosion machine at three levels (200, 400, and 600 rpm) on erosion resistance. The results showed that the aluminide coatings improved the wear and erosion resistance of substrate steel 1045; yt-trium markedly improved the hardness of the aluminide coating and its wear and erosion resistance. The erosion loss of materials was significantly (p<0.01) influenced by the type of wheat, moisture content and rotary velocity. Both aluminide coatings showed higher wear and erosion resistance than 1045 steel substrate.

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)0.001
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 score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.257
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicErosion and Abrasive MachiningFrench-language works237,207