Alumina Sol‐Assisted Sintering of SiC—Al <sub>2</sub> O <sub>3</sub> Composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The composite sol—gel (CSG) technology has been utilized to process SiC—Al 2 O 3 ceramic/ceramic particulate reinforced composites with a high content of SiC (up to 50 vol%). Alumina sol, resulting from hydrolysis of aluminum isopropoxide, has been utilized as a dispersant and sintering additive. Microstructures of the composites (investigated using TEM) show the sol‐originating phase present at grain boundaries, in particular at triple junctions, irrespective of the type of grain (i.e., SiC or Al 2 O 3 ). It is hypothesized that the alumina film originating from the alumina sol reacts with SiO 2 film on the surface of SiC grains to form mullite or alumina‐rich mullite‐glass mixed phase. Effectively, SiC particles interconnect through this phase, facilitating formation of a dense body even at very high SiC content. Comparative sinterability studies were performed on similar SiC—Al 2 O 3 compositions free of alumina sol. It appears that in these systems the large fraction of directly contacting SiC—SiC grains prevents full densification of the composite. The microhardness of SiC—Al 2 O 3 sol—gel composites has been measured as a function of the content of SiC and sintering temperature. The highest microhardness of 22.9 GPa has been obtained for the composition 50 vol% SiC—50 vol% Al 2 O 3 , sintered at 1850°C.
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".