MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of Nanocrystalline Structure and Polygonized Dislocation Substructure on Ti-Ni Martensite Lattice Parameters and Transformation Lattice Strain

2008· article· en· W1981508157 on OpenAlexaff
С. Д. Прокошкин, Andrey Korotitskiy, Vladimir Braïlovski, К. Inaekyan

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials science forum · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMicrostructure and mechanical properties
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceSubstructureNanocrystalline materialAusteniteMartensiteDislocationMetallurgyAnnealing (glass)Grain sizeCrystallographyDiffusionless transformationCondensed matter physicsComposite materialMicrostructureNanotechnologyStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Ti-50.26 and 50.61at.%Ni alloys were cold-rolled with true strains from e=0.3 to 2.1. Post-deformation annealing in the 200 to 500°C temperature range after a moderate deformation (e=0.3) produced a polygonized dislocation substructure with various dislocation density and subgrain size, while after severe plastic deformation (e=1.7-1.9), a nanocrystalline structure with various grain size was formed in the B2-austenite. An X-ray diffraction study shows that lattice parameters of B19'-martensite formed from (a) partially recovered and polygonized or (b) nanocrystalline austenites differ from the corresponding parameters of the martensite formed from quenched (recrystallized) austenite. This difference increases with nanocrystalline grain refinement and with an increase in residual dislocation density and subgrain refinement. The maximum martensitic transformation strain has the highest value for the martensite formed in recrystallized austenite, and this value decreases with nanograin refinement and with an increase in dislocation density and subgrain refinement.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.226
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials science forumSame topicMicrostructure and mechanical propertiesFrench-language works237,207