MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041643535 · doi:10.1179/096797800680947

Diffusion bonding of silicon nitride to titanium

2000· article· en· W2041643535 on OpenAlexaff
J. Lemus-Ruíz, R. A. L. Drew

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Ceramic Transactions · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvanced ceramic materials synthesis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceTitaniumMicrostructureTinScanning electron microscopeDiffusion bondingTitanium nitrideNitrideMicroanalysisSilicon nitrideHot pressingDiffusionMetallurgyTitanioComposite materialSiliconLayer (electronics)Transition metalChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Si3 N4 /Ti and Si3 N4 /Ti/Si3 N4 combinations were joined by solid state diffusion bonding using hot pressing at temperatures ranging from 1200 to 1500°C. The microstructure of the resulting interfaces was characterised by scanning electron microscopy, electron probe microanalysis, and XRD. Si3 N4 /Ti samples hot pressed at temperatures less than 1400°C could not be bonded. However, at 1400°C bonding of single joints occurred, although the samples debonded during SEM preparation. Hot pressing at 1500°C resulted in effective joining by the formation of a reactive interface. For Si3 N4 /Ti/Si3 N4 sandwich samples hot pressed at 1400 and 1500°C, successful joining of Si3 N4 to Ti occurred by the formation of an interface on the Ti side. The surface roughness of the joint materials plays an important role, affecting the thickness of the reaction products. The interfaces grew in a parabolic fashion with the formation of various titanium silicides (Ti5 Si3 and TiSi) as well as titanium nitride (TiN).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations12
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Ceramic TransactionsSame topicAdvanced ceramic materials synthesisFrench-language works237,207