MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076388498 · doi:10.1179/096797800681045

Processing and crystallisation of rapidly solidified Al <sub>2</sub> O <sub>3</sub> –Y <sub>2</sub> O <sub>3</sub> fibres

2000· article· en· W2076388498 on OpenAlexaff
E.A. Aguilar, R. A. L. Drew, Bilge Saruhan, C. Milz, Bernd Hildmann

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Ceramic Transactions · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGlass properties and applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceEutectic systemYttriumCrystallizationAluminiumAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Aluminium oxidesYttrium aluminium garnetPerovskite (structure)Ultimate tensile strengthAmorphous solidMineralogyComposite materialCrystallographyMetallurgyMicrostructureDopingChemical engineeringChemistryOxide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amorphous fibres of the Al2O3–Y2O3 system were prepared by a melt extraction technique, and subjected to crystallisation. The quality of the melt extracted fibres is controlled by the wheel edge and rotational speed, with both having a significant effect on fibre diameter and avoidance of irregularities and instabilities along the fibre length. Tensile strength in the glassy state varied from 0·6 to 1·0 GPa. Crystallisation activation energies calculated from scan-rate dependence of DTA peaks are 741 and 1374 kJ mol-1 for E1 (Al2O3–yttrium aluminium garnet (YAG) eutectic), 390 kJ mol-1 for YAG, and 438 kJ mol-1 for E2 (YAG–yttrium aluminium perovskite (YAP) eutectic) by the Kissinger method; and 698 and 1346 kJ mol-1 for E1, 352 kJ mol-1 for YAG, and 399 kJ mol-1 for E2 by the Augis–Bennett method.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations3
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Ceramic TransactionsSame topicGlass properties and applicationsFrench-language works237,207