On the Cyclic Deformation Response and Microstructural Mechanisms of ECAPed and ARBed Copper - an Overview
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increase of interest in using ultra-fine and nano-grained metals for structural purposes, the need to build on the knowledge pool regarding the response and behaviour of those metals under a mechanical load becomes more vital. However, it is well known that, especially for this type of materials such as the ECAPed and ARBed materials, the thermo-mechanical history affects the mechanical behaviour of the product strongly. Although ECAP and ARB are different techniques under the category of severe plastic deformation, similarities in their cyclic deformation response is observed from time to time. Specifically, the microstructural mechanisms involved in accommodating cyclic plastic strain in these two types of materials is seemingly comparable. The similarities arise from the similar microstructures in the majority of the volume of the bulk. In this report, the cyclic deformation response, and the related microstructural mechanisms of ECAPed copper will be discussed first and those of ARBed second. A comparison between ECAPed copper and ARBed copper will then be performed. Furthermore, the differences due to the unique features of ARBed material will be discussed. Lastly, the reasons behind the observed similarities in cyclic deformation behaviour and the related micro-mechanisms for metals process with the two different techniques will also be explored.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".