MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049375845 · doi:10.1179/026708300101508928

Microstructures formed by directional solidification of two ternary eutectic alloys of Bi–Cd–In system

2000· article· en· W2049375845 on OpenAlexafffund
L. Snugovsky, Doug D. Perovic, J. W. Rutter

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials Science and Technology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSolidification and crystal growth phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEutectic systemMaterials scienceLamellar structureMicrostructureEutectic bondingPhase (matter)FacetingQuenching (fluorescence)Ternary operationDirectional solidificationMetallurgyCrystallographyThermodynamicsOpticsFluorescenceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microstructures of the two ternary eutectic alloys of the Bi–Cd–In system were studied using slow unidirectional solidification, followed by quenching to form a representative solid/liquid interface for subsequent observation. The eutectic reactions were found to take the form L↔BiIn+BiIn2+Cd at 77.5°C and L↔BiIn2+ɛ+Cd at 61.5°C. The 77.5°C eutectic was observed to be of the faceted (BiIn)–faceted (Cd)–non-faceted (BiIn2) type, while all three phases of the 61.5°C eutectic showed faceting. The BiIn and BiIn2 phases of the 77.5°C eutectic formed a quasiregular microstructure with the Cd phase growing relatively independently. The phases of the 61.5°C eutectic tended to form a lamellar microstructure with a BiIn2–ɛ–Cd–ɛ–BiIn2 phase sequence. Both eutectics were observed to obey the usual phase spacing law, λ2R=constant, where λ is the phase spacing and R is the growth rate.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations5
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials Science and TechnologySame topicSolidification and crystal growth phenomenaFrench-language works237,207