MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Microstructure Evolution Model for Intercritical Annealing of a Low-carbon Dual-phase Steel

2014· article· en· W1987555103 on OpenAlexafffund
M.A. Kulakov, Warren J. Poole, Matthias Militzer

Bibliographic record

VenueISIJ International · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrostructure and Mechanical Properties of Steels
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaArcelorMittal
KeywordsAusteniteRecrystallization (geology)Dual-phase steelMicrostructureMaterials scienceMetallurgyAnnealing (glass)Carbon steelFerrite (magnet)Composite materialMartensite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A model was developed to describe the microstructure evolution during intercritical annealing of a low-carbon steel suitable for industrial production of DP600 grade dual-phase steel on a hot-dip galvanizing line. The microstructure evolution model consists of individual submodels for ferrite recrystallization, austenite formation and decomposition constructed using the Johnson-Mehl-Avrami-Kolmogorov approach and the additivity principle. The submodels for recrystallization and austenite formation are adopted from a previous study. The present paper provides a detailed analysis of the model development for the decomposition of intercritical austenite. The overall microstructure evolution model is validated using simulated industrial thermal paths for intercritical annealing. Model validation is expedited by in-situ measurements of the recrystallization completion temperature using laser ultrasonics and the intercritical austenite formation and decomposition using dilatometry.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations34
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISIJ InternationalSame topicMicrostructure and Mechanical Properties of SteelsFrench-language works237,207