Effect of Zincate Treatment on Adhesion of Electroless Ni–P Plated Film for 2017 Aluminum Alloy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present authors have investigated the changes in adhesion of electroless Ni–P plated films on an aluminum alloy substrate (JIS A2017P-T3, Al–4 mass%Cu) from the viewpoint of the preceding zincate treatment and the subsequent heat treatment. The precipitation state of zinc and adhesion of Ni–P plated film differed with the number of zincate treatments. Without zincate treatment, some of the Ni–P plated film peeled off during the plating process, and the film obtained after the single zincate treatment also showed poor adhesion to the substrate. The highest adhesion was obtained by the double zincate treatment, and the triple zincate treatment resulted in a poorer adhesion. Existence of aluminum at the surface of the zincate film was shown to be necessary to obtain higher adhesion of the Ni–P plated film, on the other hand, excess zinc obtained by the triple zincate caused lower adhesion. Interdiffusion of aluminum and nickel between the Ni–P plated film and the substrate through the medium of zincate film with an appropriate thickness is thought to promote strong bond between the Ni–P plated film and the substrate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".