MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001315532 · doi:10.4271/2015-01-0514

Effect of Strain Level on the Behavior of Intermetallics and Texture of Al-Si-Cu-Mg Alloy Modified with Transition Metals

2015· article· en· W2001315532 on OpenAlexafffund
S.K. Shaha, Frank Czerwiński, W. Kasprzak, J. Friedman, D.L. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE International Journal of Materials and Manufacturing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAluminum Alloy Microstructure Properties
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Resources CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceIntermetallicAlloyMetallurgyTexture (cosmology)Transition metalStrain (injury)Composite materialChemistryCatalysisComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">The uniaxial compression test was used to assess the influence of strain amount on the behavior of precipitates and texture of the Al-7%Si-1%Cu-0.5%Mg alloy, modified with micro-additions of V, Zr and Ti. As revealed through metallographic examinations, fracturing and re-orientation of the second-phase particles increased with increasing compression strain. However, the intermetallic particles experienced substantially more frequent cracking than the eutectic silicon. The crystallographic texture was measured and correlated with deformation behavior of the alloy. The weak texture of 11<211> and 111<110> components, detected after casting transformed to a mixture of 1<110>, 112<110> and 111<110> components after room-temperature compression deformation. The intensity of the texture components depended on the strain amount. It is concluded that the texture formation in the studied alloy is controlled by the precipitates formed during solidification of the alloy.</div></div>

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)0.000
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 score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE International Journal of Materials and ManufacturingSame topicAluminum Alloy Microstructure PropertiesFrench-language works237,207