MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Zirconia Transport by Liquid Convection during Oxidation of Zirconium Diboride–Silicon Carbide

2007· article· en· W2096345541 on OpenAlexaff
Sigrún N. Karlsdóttir, John W. Halloran, A. Nicholas Grundy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Ceramic Society · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvanced ceramic materials synthesis
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersOffice of Naval Research
KeywordsCubic zirconiaMaterials scienceBorosilicate glassSilicon carbideOxideComposite numberLayer (electronics)MicrostructurePhase diagramPhase (matter)SiliconChemical engineeringDeposition (geology)Composite materialMetallurgyChemistryCeramic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During high‐temperature oxidation of ZrB 2 –SiC composites, a multi‐layer oxide scale forms with a silica‐rich borosilicate liquid as the surface oxide layer. Here, a recently proposed novel mechanism for the high‐temperature oxidation of ZrB 2 –SiC composites is further investigated and verified. This mechanism involves the formation of convection cells in the oxide surface layer during high‐temperature oxidation of the composite. The formation of zirconia deposits found in the center of the convection cells is proposed here to be the consequence of liquid transport. The nature and deposition mechanism of the zirconia is reported in detail, using calculated phase equilibrium diagrams and microstructure observations of a ZrB 2 ‐15 vol% SiC composite tested at 1550° and 1700°C in ambient air for various times. The calculated phase equilibrium diagrams for the binary ZrO 2 –B 2 O 3 system as well as the ternary B 2 O 3 –SiO 2 –ZrO 2 system at 1500°C are reported here to interpret these results.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations97
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Ceramic SocietySame topicAdvanced ceramic materials synthesisFrench-language works237,207