MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of Vanadium Addition on API X100 Steel

2014· article· en· W1972704238 on OpenAlexafffund
Shahrooz Nafisi, Muhammad Arafin, Robert Glodowski, Laurie Collins, Jerzy A. Szpunar

Bibliographic record

VenueISIJ International · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicHydrogen embrittlement and corrosion behaviors in metals
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of SaskatchewanEVRAZ (Canada)
FundersNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsVanadiumMaterials scienceMetallurgyMicrostructureElectron backscatter diffractionAlloyUltimate tensile strengthDuctility (Earth science)Texture (cosmology)Grain sizeToughness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Laboratory heats of an API X100 steel (Mn–Mo–Nb) with two levels of vanadium (0.004% and 0.063%) were melted and control rolled simulating a coiled plate production process. Extensive microstructural analyses were performed, including optical, EBSD and TEM. Texture analyses of the two alloys were also compared. Mechanical properties were determined for various rolling and pipe axis orientations. Only minor differences in microstructure and texture properties were observed between the two alloys. Yet the 0.063% V alloy had from 8 to 14% higher yield and tensile strengths in all directions, while the toughness and ductility measurements were similar for both alloys. Higher strength of the V added pipeline steel was partially due to its smaller grain size and larger fraction of subgrain boundaries. Some, but perhaps not all, of the strength differences could be related to the observed smaller precipitate size of the higher vanadium steel. The vanadium addition was necessary in this alloy to ensure meeting the required strength properties of X100 steel.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations22
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISIJ InternationalSame topicHydrogen embrittlement and corrosion behaviors in metalsFrench-language works237,207