MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093652433 · doi:10.1038/srep09184

Atomic picture of elastic deformation in a metallic glass

2015· article· en· W2093652433 on OpenAlexaff
X.D. Wang, S. Aryal, Chuyu Zhong, W. Y. Ching, H. W. Sheng, Hao Zhang, Dongxian Zhang, Q.P. Cao, J.Z. Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallic Glasses and Amorphous Alloys
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Zhejiang ProvinceFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaDivision of Materials ResearchOffice of ScienceNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Energy Research Scientific Computing CenterUniversity of Missouri-Kansas CityU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDeformation (meteorology)Amorphous metalMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tensile behavior of a Ni60Nb40 metallic glass (MG) has been studied by using ab initio density functional theory (DFT) calculation with a large cell containing 1024 atoms (614 Ni and 410 Nb). We provide insight into how a super elastic limit can be achieved in a MG. Spatially inhomogeneous responses of single atoms and also major polyhedra are found to change greatly with increasing external stress when the strain is over 2%, causing the intrinsically viscoelastic behavior. We uncover the origin of the observed super elastic strain limit under tension (including linear and viscoelastic strains) in small-sized MG samples, mainly caused by inhomogeneous distribution of excess volumes in the form of newly formed subatomic cavities.

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 score0.010

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations27
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicMetallic Glasses and Amorphous AlloysFrench-language works237,207