MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1883507090 · doi:10.1002/pssa.200622217

Ultrasonic properties of Cu<sub>45</sub>Zr<sub>(45–<i>x</i>)</sub>Hf<sub><i>x</i></sub>Ag<sub>10</sub> glassy alloys

2006· article· en· W1883507090 on OpenAlexaff
Mikio Fukuhara, Fei Jia, Wei Zhang, Akihisa Inoue

Bibliographic record

Venuephysica status solidi (a) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallic Glasses and Amorphous Alloys
Canadian institutionsHatch (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceAmorphous metalShear modulusPoisson's ratioElasticity (physics)Shear (geology)Condensed matter physicsComposite materialAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Poisson distributionAlloyChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using ultrasonics, the acoustic characteristics of Cu45Zr(45–x)Hfx Ag10 (x = 0–25) glassy alloys were examined in terms of complex elasticity. The values of bulk modulus (K), Lamè parameter (λ), Young's (E) and shear (G) moduli of Cu45Zr(45–x)Hfx Ag10 glassy alloys are found to have a unique order for metallic materials, except for polymers. The large Poisson ratio (∼0.421) and the lower G /K ratio (∼0.167) at 25 at% Hf indicate rubbery characteristics that readily undergo uniaxial volume‐preserving deformation but resist three‐dimensional nonvolume‐preserving deformation. The complex dynamic viscosity shows that visco‐elasticity of the glassy alloys is dominated by shear motion. The large peaks in K and λ, and small ones in E and G at 5 at% Hf, and one large peak in the shear attenuation coefficient at 2.5 at% Hf, may indicate atomic morphological change by electron‐transverse phonon coupling. (© 2006 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)

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)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations15
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuephysica status solidi (a)Same topicMetallic Glasses and Amorphous AlloysFrench-language works237,207