MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025368471 · doi:10.1177/1056789513518951

Searching for the superior solution to the population-based optimization problem: Processing of the wear resistant commercial AA6061 AMCs

2014· article· en· W2025368471 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Mazahery, Mohsen Ostad Shabani, A.E.M.M. ELREFAEI

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Damage Mechanics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAluminum Alloys Composites Properties
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceReinforcementPorosityComposite materialComposite numberMicrostructureMetal matrix compositeCastingAluminiumFriction stir processingMatrix (chemical analysis)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this present work, stir casting technique was used to fabricate aluminum matrix composites with varying weight percentages of SiC (5, 10 and 15) reinforcements. The proper selection of process parameter such as pouring temperature, stirring speed, stirring time and pre-heat temperature of reinforcement can all influence the quality of the fabricated composites. The porosity level of composite should be minimized and the chemical reaction between reinforcement and matrix should be avoided. Optimization is an applied science which explores the best values of the parameters of a problem that may take under specified conditions. The execution of an optimized stir casting technique yields relatively homogenous and fine microstructure which improves the addition of reinforcement material in the molten metal. The influence of SiC content, SiC size and secondary mechanical processing with different rolling reductions on the dry sliding wear characteristics of Al matrix composites has been assessed using a pin-on-disc wear test. The porosity and hardness of the resultant composites were also examined.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations23
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Damage MechanicsSame topicAluminum Alloys Composites PropertiesFrench-language works237,207