MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2197027887 · doi:10.3139/146.111288

Microstructural evolution during solidification of Al–Cu-based alloys

2015· article· en· W2197027887 on OpenAlexaff
Gergis Adel Shaker Zaki, A. M. Samuel, H. W. Doty, F. H. Samuel

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Materials Research (formerly Zeitschrift fuer Metallkunde) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAluminum Alloy Microstructure Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrinell scaleMaterials scienceMetallurgyAlloyCastingMicrostructureRefining (metallurgy)ScandiumOptical microscopeMicroanalysisTitaniumElectron probe microanalysisScanning electron microscopeElectron microprobeComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The present study focuses on the effect of alloying elements, namely, strontium, titanium, zirconium, scandium and silver, individually or in combination, on the performance of a newly developed Al-2 %Cu-based alloy. A total of thirteen alloy compositions were used in the study. Castings were prepared employing the low pressure die casting technique. The microstructures of selected samples were examined using optical microscopy and electron probe microanalysis. Hardness measurements were also carried out on these alloys using a Brinell hardness tester. The results showed that adding Ti in the amount of 0.15 wt.% in the form of Al-5 %Ti-1 %B master alloy is sufficient to refine the grains in the cast structure in the presence of 200 ppm Sr (0.02 wt.%). Addition of Zr and Sc did not contribute further to the grain refining effect. The main role of addition of these two elements appeared in the formation of complex compounds with Al and Ti. The results obtained from the low pressure die casting samples were compared with those produced using traditional gravity die casting. No heat treatment was applied.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Materials Research (formerly Zeitschrift fuer Metallkunde)Same topicAluminum Alloy Microstructure PropertiesFrench-language works237,207