MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097843678 · doi:10.1520/jai103066

In Situ Studies of Variant Selection During the α-β-α Phase Transformation in Zr-2.5Nb

2010· article· en· W2097843678 on OpenAlexaff
Paula Mosbrucker, Mark R. Daymond, R.A. Holt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of ASTM International · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear Materials and Properties
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceTexture (cosmology)Transformation (genetics)Phase (matter)SynchrotronStress (linguistics)DiffractionNeutron diffractionWork (physics)In situSelection (genetic algorithm)CrystallographyThermodynamicsChemistryOpticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In situ phase transformation experiments have been carried out using neutron and synchrotron X-ray diffraction to monitor the texture evolution and establish the criteria for variant selection during the α→β→α phase transformation in Zr-2.5Nb. There is clear evidence of a strong variant selection occurring during the α→β transformation and a weaker variant selection during the β→α transformation. Further, comparing hot-worked specimens with those that have received additional cold-work revealed that cold-work introduced microstructural characteristics that inhibited the full development of the transformed texture seen in the hot-worked samples. A study of the effect of external biasing stresses during transformation was conducted. An external biasing stress was applied along the hoop axis during different components of the α→β→α transformation. An external stress during heating does not appear to significantly influence variant selection, at least for the stress magnitudes tested here, while an external stress during cooling did have some influence on the resultant texture.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ASTM InternationalSame topicNuclear Materials and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207