MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116526472 · doi:10.1002/srin.201200273

Advanced Methods for Assessing the Melt‐<scp>S</scp>pecific Creep Rupture Behavior of P91 Steel for Power Plants

2013· article· en· W2116526472 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Olga Frolova, Karl Maile

Bibliographic record

Venuesteel research international · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIron and Steelmaking Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsCreepContext (archaeology)Work (physics)Artificial neural networkMaterials sciencePower (physics)Range (aeronautics)Computer scienceMechanical engineeringComposite materialEngineeringMachine learningThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In systems that operate in the creep range, such as steam power plants, the life‐time assessment of highly loaded high‐temperature components poses an important task. The main problem in this context is the reliable detection and evaluation of specific material characteristics. First of all there are the strength properties that are the result of the multidimensional interdependences between the individual elements of the chemical composition, the heat treatment parameters and the production conditions. With the current state of knowledge and technology, melt‐specific creep rupture strength can only be determined experimentally. Modeling with neural network techniques therefore represents an alternative to analytical methods since multidimensional relationships can be taken into account. This work aims to identify and assess the potential for the application of artificial neural networks to the determination of relevant properties of selected high‐temperature resistant steels. The emphasis of the study is to determinate the position of the specific melts in the scatter band of creep rupture data as well as to assess/predict time‐to‐rupture for the given steel under consideration of all relevant technical data available and to find out an optimum of the creep rupture strength.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.366 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuesteel research internationalSame topicIron and Steelmaking ProcessesFrench-language works237,207