MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Laser-Ultrasonic Austenite Grain Size Measurements in Low-Carbon Steels

2012· article· en· W1984269355 on OpenAlexaff
Matthias Militzer, Mehran Maalekian, André C. Moreau

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials science forum · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrostructure and Mechanical Properties of Steels
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceMetallurgyMicrostructureAusteniteGrain sizeCarbon steelLaser ultrasonicsRecrystallization (geology)LaserOpticsWavelengthOptoelectronicsCorrosion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Austenite grain size is an important microstructure parameter when processing steels as it provides the initial condition for the austenite decomposition that determines the final microstructure and thus properties of the steel. In low-carbon steels it is frequently difficult if not impossible to quantify the austenite grain size using conventional metallographic techniques. Laser-ultrasonics provides an attractive alternative to quantify the grain size in-situ during thermo-mechanical processing of a steel sample. The attenuation of the laser generated ultrasound wave is a function of the grain size. The present paper gives an overview on the state-of-the-art of this novel measurement technique. Using isothermal and non-isothermal grain growth tests in low-carbon steels the advantages and limitations of laser-ultrasonic measurements will be demonstrated. Further, their application for deformed samples will be presented to quantify austenite grain sizes during and after recrystallization. The in-situ measurements provide significantly new insights into the austenite microstructure evolution during thermo-mechanical processing of low-carbon steels. The implications on expediting the development of improved process models will be discussed.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials science forumSame topicMicrostructure and Mechanical Properties of SteelsFrench-language works237,207