MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neutron Diffraction Techniques for Alloy Characterization and Development

2006· article· en· W2094258165 on OpenAlexaff
Michael A. Gharghouri

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials science forum · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMicrostructure and mechanical properties
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceNeutron diffractionNeutron scatteringResidual stressCharacterization (materials science)Electron backscatter diffractionAlloyDiffractionFormabilityTexture (cosmology)ScatteringComposite materialMicrostructureOpticsNanotechnologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Important activities in the aluminum industry are the development of new alloys, and the optimization of thermo-mechanical treatments to obtain desired performance. The strength and formability of aluminum alloys depend on the distribution and scale of precipitating phases, on the grain size and grain orientation distribution, on the distribution and scale of flaws, and on the presence of residual stresses. Thus it is useful to have detailed quantitative data on the crystal structures and volume fractions of phases that form during thermomechanical treatment, on the kinetics of solid state reactions, on the distribution of grain orientations, and on the stresses that develop during mechanical testing and forming. Neutron scattering is a powerful tool that can provide unique data to guide the development of improved materials and processes. Of particular interest are in-situ experiments: such experiments are uniquely suited to neutron diffraction because of the high penetrating power of neutrons, which allows data to be collected from materials subjected to realistic conditions (load, temperature, atmosphere) in specialized sample environments. In this presentation, we discuss several examples of neutron scattering studies, including residual strain mapping, in-situ loading experiments, texture analysis, powder diffraction, and tomography.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials science forumSame topicMicrostructure and mechanical propertiesFrench-language works237,207