MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Constant Current Electrophoretic Infiltration Deposition of Fiber‐Reinforced Ceramic Composites

2007· article· en· W2142450952 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 · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrophoretic Deposition in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrophoretic depositionComposite materialMaterials scienceCapillary actionElectrophoresisElectric fieldInfiltration (HVAC)FiberCeramicDeposition (geology)ElectrodeChemistryCoatingChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modified electrophoretic infiltration deposition (EPID) under constant current conditions is used to fabricate non‐conductive‐fiber‐reinforced composites from an ethanol suspension. Particles are infiltrated through a fiber preform by an electric field and are deposited on the front of the electrode and “backfill” through the fiber preform. A uniform morphology is achieved at the optimum deposition rate. The constant current EPID process is modeled as capillary infiltration electrophoresis. Particles “stream” the fiber preform due to the repulsive interaction between the fiber filaments and the particles as both have the same‐sign surface charge. Electro‐osmotic flow makes no contribution to deposit yield as the net flow across a closed capillary cross section is zero. Hamaker's law is extended to electrophoretic infiltration; however, the total deposit yield is controlled by particle electrophoresis outside the capillaries due to the much lower electric field in the suspension. The deposit thickness increases linearly with time under optimum current conditions. Too high a deposition rate promotes air entrapment in the depositing green body.

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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.225 · 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