The Precipitation of Primary Carbides in IN718 and its Relation to Solidification Conditions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The solidification structure of remelt ingots of IN718 has been modeled by many authors using a number of different computation techniques. The models have generally been validated by comparing the computed liquidus line with the "pool profile" as outlined by a variety of techniques in industrial ingots. Recent models have also been validated by comparing the dendrite spacings predicted by the computed solidification parameters to those derived from laboratory directional solidification experiments. Both these methods have strong drawbacks. The "pool profile" is almost certainly not the liquidus line in a practical ingot due to supercooling and to momentum transfer from the bulk liquid to the interdendritic liquid in the region where the solid fraction is small. In the case of the dendrite spacings, the nature of the spacings' dependence on the solidification parameters means that the variations expected in practical ingots are close to the precision with which the spacings can be determined. We therefore lack sufficient means to properly test the computed ingot structures against actual practice.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it