MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119685805 · doi:10.1177/030932471004500805

Comparison of stress relaxation and creep strain rates for the superalloy IN738LC

2010· article· en· W2119685805 on OpenAlex
J. Beddoes, Teymoor Mohammadi

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Strain Analysis for Engineering Design · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh Temperature Alloys and Creep
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreepStress relaxationMaterials scienceSuperalloyStrain rateExtrapolationStress (linguistics)Strain (injury)Relaxation (psychology)Deformation (meteorology)DislocationComposite materialMetallurgyMicrostructurePsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The strain rates derived from stress relaxation tests are compared to those from creep tests at 760 °C for the superalloy IN738LC for stresses between 500 and 600 MPa. The strain rates agree well from 500 to 575 MPa, but a difference exists at 600 MPa. The results are interpreted in terms of the deformation mechanism controlling the strain rate. It is suggested that dislocation mechanisms control the deformation, but at 600 MPa the mechanisms controlling the creep strain rate differs from that controlling recovery during stress relaxation. The time efficiency associated with stress relaxation testing can be used to advantage within a limited stress range, however, extrapolation of stress-relaxation-derived strain rates may lead to the same erroneous results associated with extrapolation of creep strain rates.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.252 · 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