MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Superplasticity in Coarse-Grained Al-Mg Alloys

2006· article· en· W2019812067 on OpenAlexaff
E. Isaac Samuel, John J. Jonas, F. H. Samuel, S.R. MacEwen

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials science forum · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAluminum Alloys Composites Properties
Canadian institutionsNovelis (Canada)Université du Québec à ChicoutimiMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuperplasticityMaterials scienceFlow stressStrain rateMetallurgyDeformation (meteorology)Ductility (Earth science)Strain (injury)ElongationAlloyDynamic strain agingUltimate tensile strengthStress (linguistics)Composite materialCreep

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Superplasticity refers to a high temperature deformation process involving a marked sensitivity of the flow stress to the imposed strain rate, with resulting enhanced ductility. Although conventionally associated with fine-grained materials, superplasticity has recently been observed in coarse-grained alloys. The present research involves the deformation behavior of Al-Mg base alloys, where superpure Al-3%Mg and Al-5%Mg, and commercial Al 5056 were selected for study. The results for the Al-5%Mg and Al 5056 alloys are presented in this article. Flat sheet-type samples were tensile tested to 10% strain at increasing temperatures and at prescribed strain rates (0.001/s, 0.01/s, and 0.1/s). The dependence of flow stress on temperature was found to display some unusual characteristics. This behavior is interpreted as resulting from the occurrence of dynamic strain ageing (DSA). The aim of the overall study is to determine the relation between DSA and superplasticity in coarse-grained Al-Mg alloys. This will, in turn, lead to the control of the strain ageing behavior so as to produce the largest possible values of strain rate sensitivity (and, hence, elongation).

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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.187 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials science forumSame topicAluminum Alloys Composites PropertiesFrench-language works237,207