MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nucleation of Dynamic Recrystallization at the Grain Boundaries of Copper Bicrystals

2007· article· en· W2038576476 on OpenAlexaff
Hiromi Miura, Taku Sakai, R. Mogawa, John J. Jonas

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials science forum · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMicrostructure and mechanical properties
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleationCrystal twinningMaterials scienceGrain boundaryRecrystallization (geology)CrystallographyStrain rateSlip (aerodynamics)Dynamic recrystallizationDislocationGrain boundary strengtheningCopperCondensed matter physicsComposite materialMetallurgyMicrostructureThermodynamicsHot workingPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Orientation-controlled copper bicrystals containing symmetrical 70o [0 0 1] tilt boundaries were deformed in tension at 923 K and at three initial strain rates from 4.2 x 10-5s-1 to 4.2 x 10-3s-1. The load was applied parallel to the grain boundary so as to eliminate grain boundary sliding. The nucleation of dynamic recrystallization (DRX) was investigated using optical microscopy and orientation imaging microscopy methods. After grain-boundary migration (GBM) and bulging, nuclei appeared behind the most deeply bulged grain boundary regions. The critical strain for nucleation was less than one-half of the peak strain and largely independent of the strain rate. At a fixed strain, nucleation is more frequent and the grain size finer as the strain rate is increased. All the nuclei were twin-related (Σ3) to the matrices. Furthermore, most of the twinning plane traces were parallel to the inactive slip traces of the bicrystals. This indicates that twin variant selection is essentially unaffected by dislocation motion. The observed mechanism of nucleation of DRX is discussed in relation to the occurrence of GBM and twinning.

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)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations11
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials science forumSame topicMicrostructure and mechanical propertiesFrench-language works237,207