Microstructure characterisation of solution treated (ST) and solution treated and aged (STA) Incoloy 909
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A microstructural analysis has been carried out on the commercially solution treated and aged (STA) Incoloy 909 superalloy to evaluate the phases present using optical, SEM, TEM and differential scanning calorimetry. Comparison is made where possible with non-standard STA analyses reported in the literature. In the STA condition, the main phase present besides the γ matrix was a deliberately produced Laves phase to control grain growth. Increasing the solution temperature above that recommended for the alloy resulted in eventual solution of the Laves phase and concomitant grain growth. In the STA condition, in addition to the Laves phase, a copious precipitation of a γ′ phase (Ni3TiNb) was observed. In addition, a limited observation was made of the early stages of the transition of some of the γ′ phase to the ϵ phase for the over aged condition. There was no ϵ phase observed in the STA condition. A final observation was the presence of ‘black grain’ previously reported in the literature, in both the ST and STA conditions in the authors’ research. The present view is that the phenomenon is an etching artefact and not a genuine microstructural feature.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".