MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Multiscale Characterisation of the Transformation Texture in a High Performance Steel

2005· article· en· W2060305687 on OpenAlexaff
Stéphane Godet, You Liang He, John J. Jonas, Pascal Jacques

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials science forum · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrostructure and Mechanical Properties of Steels
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAusteniteBainiteMaterials scienceElectron backscatter diffractionMartensiteFerrite (magnet)DiffractionMetallurgyTexture (cosmology)Deformation (meteorology)CrystallographyTransformation (genetics)Composite materialMicrostructureOpticsImage (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The orientation relationships operating during the austenite (FCC) to BCC phase transformation were investigated in a high performance steel using X-ray and electron diffraction techniques and employing several length scales. These steels contain some retained austenite that permits the direct comparison of the textures of the parent (austenite) and product (ferrite, bainite, martensite) phases. X-ray diffraction allowed the global texture of the rolled parent austenite phase to be determined as well as that of its transformation product. EBSD techniques permitted study of the orientation relationships on a local scale. The observed correspondence relations are expressed in Rodrigues-Frank space. The exact Kurdjumov-Sachs relation was never found. The local spread of orientation in the parent austenite (due to deformation) is seen to be inherited by the bainite. This is attributed to the displacive mode of transformation to bainite. The influence of prior deformation of the austenite on the occurrence of variant selection was also studied. It appears that a critical strain is necessary to produce a significant amount of variant selection.

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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials science forumSame topicMicrostructure and Mechanical Properties of SteelsFrench-language works237,207