MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hot Working Defines Thermomechanical Processing (TMP) for Aluminum Alloys and Composites

2012· article· en· W1988822548 on OpenAlexaff
H.J. McQueen, E. Evangelìsta

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials science forum · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAluminum Alloy Microstructure Properties
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceHot workingMetallurgyAnnealing (glass)Recrystallization (geology)ForgingExtrusionThermomechanical processingSubstructureComposite materialWeldingDynamic recrystallizationCorrosionHardenabilityAlloy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TMP of Al alloys includes hot working with dynamic substructures and deformation bands for texture components combined with static recovery or recrystallization as well as cold working altered by annealing. The above processes are separately tailored for solute (Al, Mg), dispersoid (Al-0.7Fe) and precipitation hardening alloys; aging combined with deformation can raise strength or improve fatigue or corrosion resistance. Hot and cold rolling with suitable holding intervals are managed to combine deformation and annealing textures for planar anisotropy or for producing less fibrous grains to avoid delamination corrosion; grains may be severely refined by discontinuous or continuous recrystallization for superplastic sheet. In hot-billet and impact extrusion as an addition to substructure and texture strengthening, the intense heating near the die may be employed for precipitate solution with exit quenching for press heat treatment to T5 temper. Similarly, friction stir surface treatment and welding provide intense hot straining with additional softening as metal is swept behind the pin. In combination with some of the above, forging provides grain and dispersoid fibering oriented for crack retardation; semi solid forming competes with this.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 topicAluminum Alloy Microstructure PropertiesFrench-language works237,207