MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Processing of Microcellular Mullite

2005· article· en· W2122696201 on OpenAlex

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

VenueJournal of the American Ceramic Society · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvanced ceramic materials synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Seoul
KeywordsMulliteMaterials scienceCeramicSinteringComposite materialPorosityCompressive strengthHomogeneousPyrolysisGreen bodyPolymerFiller (materials)Chemical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new processing route for manufacturing partially interconnected open‐cell, microcellular mullite ceramics has been developed. The strategy adopted for making microcellular mullite ceramics entailed the following steps: (i) fabricating a formed body from combining polysiloxane, Al 2 O 3 (a reactive filler), polymer microbeads (used as sacrificial templates), and Y 2 O 3 (a sintering additive); (ii) cross‐linking the polysiloxane in the formed body; (iii) transforming the polysiloxane by pyrolysis into SiO 2 ; and (iv) synthesizing mullite by reacting SiO 2 and Al 2 O 3 . By controlling the sintering temperature and the microbead and additive contents, it was possible to adjust the porosity so that it ranged from 38% to 85%. The compressive strengths of the microcellular ceramics with ∼40% and ∼70% porosities were ∼90 and ∼10 MPa, respectively. The superior compressive strengths were attributed to the homogeneous distribution of small (≤20 μm), spherical cells with dense struts in the microcellular ceramics.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.237 · 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