MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Powder metallurgy processing of Al–Cu–Mg alloy with low Cu/Mg ratio

2011· article· en· W1981588054 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

VenuePowder Metallurgy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAluminum Alloys Composites Properties
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceAlloyMetallurgyUltimate tensile strengthPowder metallurgyDuctility (Earth science)SinteringAluminiumCompactionComposite materialCreep

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this work was to develop an Al–Cu–Mg alloy with a low Cu/Mg ratio suitable for press and sinter powder metallurgy (PM) processing. A bulk composition of Al–2·3Cu–1·6Mg was explored for this purpose. Data revealed that the alloy exhibited a normal response to uni-axial die compaction with a performance that was aligned with commercial blends. Temperature and tin content were found to influence the sintering response. Once optimised, near-full theoretical density was achieved in the sintered product. The alloy was also responsive to T6 heat treatment. Peak hardness was attained by solutionising at 530°C and then aging at 200°C for 20 h. Tensile data revealed that the alloy exhibited a very well balanced combination of properties in the T1 and T6 tempers. In this sense, relatively high values of yield strength and ultimate tensile strength were accompanied by wrought-like stiffness and levels of tensile ductility that were abnormally high for press and sinter aluminium PM alloys.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.277
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.182 · 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